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

[criterionoop]

My two cents - it's complicated.

When you have only one representation of a minority - especially in a film that takes place during a time when racism was as rampant as it was in the 1960s - it becomes hard because that one character is essentially considered a representation of their race/ethnicity (some will argue with me that this is not true, but in terms of audiences watching films, these are the sole portrayals they get, and therefore, their portrayals have a lot of weight in representing the ethnicity).

In this case, I do not believe that Tarantino was being overtly racist (though if we want to talk about his use of the N-word in other movies, that is another very complex subject to tackle).

I do believe that the audience laughed primarily to the delivery of Bruce Lee's lines (his affectation) and the noises he made. Is this enough to justify racism? Not really. It is somewhat problematic, but I could not make an argument that his noises were racist (I'm pretty sure Tarantino was just emulating the noises Lee made in his movies).

In terms of his character being a blow-hard - I mean it is a narrative choice, but I don't think it's grounded in racism. He essentially was just used as a narrative catalyst for both Sharon Tate and Cliff. But because he was the only prominent Asian character in the film, there is an onus to portray him "correctly" (and I put that in quotes because there is not one "correct" way to portray a nonwhite person).

[mfunk9786]

Man, if Kill Bill came out today I would have to toss my computer in the ocean

[knives]

With the caveat that I haven't seen this yet, I feel something that is missing from this discussion is how Lee himself has become a character. There was an entire genre dedicated toward 'Bruce Lee' the character fighting people. In that light discussing this without discussing how Tarantino was probably thinking about that character as well as the person seems to be ignoring how Tarantino has worked through things in the past.

[therewillbeblus]

With the caveat that I haven't seen this yet, I feel something that is missing from this discussion is how Lee himself has become a character. There was an entire genre dedicated toward 'Bruce Lee' the character fighting people. In that light discussing this without discussing how Tarantino was probably thinking about that character as well as the person seems to be ignoring how Tarantino has worked through things in the past.

This is a great point knives and connected to a lot of the thematic interest (mostly discussed in spoilerboxes) Tarantino explores in this film especially regarding Hollywood and reality vs fantasy within and outside of that world, including playing with his and audience’s perspectives of people, places, and events, real or imagined.

[Mr Sausage]

I think the juvenile violence of the end, which is going to be one of the things most widely criticized, is a key to what the movie's doing. That ending is knowingly, deliberately juvenile so that we'll step outside it for a moment and make a connection. Because we've seen it before: in Rick Dalton's films. That the ending is ridiculous, in poor taste, over the top, and offers a fantastical (in two senses, as both unrealistic and a-historical) and contrived sense of emotional release, is precisely what makes it so Hollywood. When Rick torches the Manson family member in the pool, it's exactly the same as when he torched the nazi command in his exploitation war film. Both moments are serving the same function: cheerful Hollywood fantasy where historical villains are given an audience-pleasing comeuppance in a ludicrous and a-historical, but satisfying way. This is not an unthinking repetition; it's meant to signal that we have not been watching a movie about fluffy fantasy contrasted with harsh reality. In fact the whole thing is fantasy--hence the title.

Most will call this Tarantino's least violent film, but in truth it's filled to the brim with violence. It just doesn't register because it's all occurring on screens as part of tv or movie clips, or as part of on-going productions. The exaggerated, cartoonish threats and instances of violence contrast with the unbearable expectation that eventually real-world violence, in all its sickness and immensity, will break out. And yet it never does. By the time the violence arrives, it is as cartoony and black & white as any of the films and tv, and it is handled in the same audience pleasing manner, in which the villains get their comeuppance and the heroes look good. And as a result, here is a film about the Manson murders, made by Quentin Tarantino no less, that does not in any way use those murders and their violence for audience enjoyment on any level. Is there another Manson film that can say as much? All the rest, on some level or another, are built on attracting an audience specifically because of the gruesomeness of the violence perpetrated, even if it's to enjoy not enjoying it. Tarantino gives us enjoyable violence of entirely another kind, and as a result is less culpable in the exploitation of real human misery.

The unstated assumption behind the film is that the Manson family murders are a central cultural moment. They signaled America's loss of innocence, the moment when the hope of the 60s fell into the bleakness of the 70s. Hollywood is a microcosm for this. The westerns, crime films, war movies, and all that was cheerful, fantastical, and audience-pleasing in their violent narratives gave way in the 70s to pessimism, conspiracies, gritty violence, the anti-hero, and the downbeat ending. A turn from fantasy to reality.

Tarantino's movie, as I see it, is an attempt to defer the loss of innocence that came with the death of Hollywood fantasy at the end of the 60s. Not recapture it, not argue for a return to it, not offer it as an Eden or an idyll in any literal sense. It simply puts off having the fantasy end; it allows us to imagine this moment in Hollywood history and American culture continuing on for a little bit longer. It is the opposite of nihilistic: we expect at any moment the carefully constructed fantasy to pop and return to crushing reality, only for it to whimsically continue, the gate finally opening for our hero our to meet the princess inside.

The movie is a fairy tale. Its title is no mere Leone reference. What it is as well, I'd argue, is an attempt to treat history on purely cinematic terms by converting history into cinema--treating it in the manner of cinema rather than as matter for cinema. Meaning it treats history according to the laws and conventions of Hollywood culture, none of which would allow for the Manson murders, but which do allow for over-the-top, audience-pleasing triumphs of good over evil.

What's nice is that the movie is self-aware without being cynical. It neither unthinkingly embraces the ethos nor offers it up for condemnation. Instead it offers this story as an explicit fantasy, one that can be ridiculous and be laughed at in a knowing way, and yet one which is vital and important, and whose loss can inspire enough sadness for the deferral of that loss to be uplifting. We are all Alonso Quixanos for whom cinema is the chance become Don Quixotes. How much fun if, at the end, we actually get to see the Don go on one more adventure. So it is to see the Hollywood fantasy continue on just a little bit longer. Tarantino did not make an elegy, he made an ode.

[Black Hat]

Mr. S - I agree with much of what you wrote in particular a few of the threads you knotted in your last two paragraphs, but I'm curious as to pose you a question, do you believe the film has a point of view outside of anything to do with cinema? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be taking the position that it doesn't.

Edit: One other point, the ending you speak of isn't actually the film's ending, it's rather its climax.

[Mr Sausage]

The film does have a point of view outside of cinema, and that's the self-aware part of the movie, the one that wants us to be aware that this is all fantasy, not least by being aware of the historical landscape it's representing and the events that it's subverting. What sets Tarantino apart from mere genre imitators is that his films have, and demand from their viewers, an extra-filmic awareness. His films constantly contextualize themselves as movies. A film with no POV outside film wouldn't recognize itself as a movie because there is no context outside itself which it could define itself against. Movies would be the given, in that case--the only reality.

I tend to use "ending" and "climax" conterminously. I haven't forgotten what the final scene is--I describe it in my post, even.

[Black Hat]

It neither unthinkingly embraces the ethos nor offers it up for condemnation.

This was what I'm not sure I agree with or perhaps don't understand. I think at times the film does both using Cliff Burton/Brad Pitt to play between both viewpoints and I think you can make the argument he's punished for it. Beyond this I took parts of what you've written to imply the film is apolitical.

[therewillbeblus]

Great writeup Sausage! I think there's a bit more aim in audience involvement specifically playing with the depths of their own emotional relationship with movies, and identification and realisation of ego functions through the medium, beyond the "extra-filmic awareness" that is spun throughout the film (especially in the climax and end) but this is certainly a byproduct of that awareness and you hit on an intent that hasn't been as thoroughly explored and feels absolutely right in its comprehension of all the moving parts fitting together.

[Mr Sausage]

It neither unthinkingly embraces the ethos nor offers it up for condemnation.

This was what I'm not sure I agree with or perhaps don't understand. I think at times the film does both using Cliff Burton/Brad Pitt to play between both viewpoints and I think you can make the argument he's punished for it. Beyond this I took parts of what you've written to imply the film is apolitical.

What I was saying is that the film is not wholly one or the other. It embraces Hollywood filmic fantasy, but offers a few criticisms as well. It is loving, but aware. It’s not asking for passive acceptance from the audience, even if it does ultimately need us to accept a particular vision of film and Hollywood for the fantasy to work. Presumably if you loathe everything about the Hollywood fantasy machine, this film can’t work for you. That said, if you buy too deeply into that fantasy, there’s a lot about the film—especially the tone—that’ll be incomprehensible.

I suppose the film is apolitical in the sense that it advances no specific political ideology.

[Black Hat]

Ah that makes more sense to me now thanks and I agree.

Where I'll disagree is with the film being apolitical. While I don't believe it's as strong as some of those who have remarked that the film espouses a conservative viewpoint, I do think it falls on the side of the ledger.

[Mr Sausage]

If the movie is conservative, it’s conservative in a wider sense.

The film contains politics, as most art does. But it advances no specific political position. It’s not a political movie. This is how I define apolitical.

[whaleallright]

n/m

[therewillbeblus]

SpoilerShow

I agree that the movie is not politically conservative, or anti-hippie, but it is taking a stand against hive-mindedness, which I think is being misconstrued for conservative. Tarantino has been pretty clear about detesting this mindset regarding violence in film as responsible for x, and I’d guess from the way he depicts the Manson family in the context of the film this would extend to any oversimplification or projection of association from the political onto one area. The stance of taking a relativistic mindset toward exposing an issue as more complex is not very political (as far as taking a liberal or conservative side) and more of a grey worldview vs. specifying how that issue is complex, which would then become more concretely political (on either side depending on those specifics) as its primary concern had the film gone that route.

[Black Hat]

Mr. S - understood.

SpoilerShow

I agree that the movie is not politically conservative, or anti-hippie, but it is taking a stand against hive-mindedness, which I think is being misconstrued for conservative. Tarantino has been pretty clear about detesting this mindset regarding violence in film as responsible for x, and I’d guess from the way he depicts the Manson family in the context of the film this would extend to any oversimplification or projection of association from the political onto one area. The stance of taking a relativistic mindset toward exposing an issue as more complex is not very political (as far as taking a liberal or conservative side) and more of a grey worldview vs. specifying how that issue is complex, which would then become more concretely political (on either side depending on those specifics) as its primary concern had the film gone that route.

Personally I see the film's conservatism, but it's not a sentiment I'd go to the mat for and mostly reside within the space of Mr. S' definition of apolitical. Having said that, I do believe the film is decidedly anti-hippie that goes beyond taking a stand against hive-mindedness. Now I think the argument to push against that is, if I recall correctly, the only hippies we see are characters we are meant to find loathsome. Is that calling out groupthink? I'm not sure.

[therewillbeblus]

Personally I see the film's conservatism, but it's not a sentiment I'd go to the mat for and mostly reside within the space of Mr. S' definition of apolitical. Having said that, I do believe the film is decidedly anti-hippie that goes beyond taking a stand against hive-mindedness. Now I think the argument to push against that is, if I recall correctly, the only hippies we see are characters we are meant to find loathsome. Is that calling out groupthink? I'm not sure.

That’s not my argument, and no I don’t think that would be the connection to calling out groupthink- definitely a stretch of a case. First, not only do I believe that Tarantino has celebrated many aspects of hippie culture from dress to slang to dance to appearance in especially the earlier works of Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill but he seems to embody many of these traits in the way he’s talked, dressed, and carried himself in interviews, not to mention having listed films as favorites that celebrate this culture. The depictions of hippie attributes in these films of his seem to be to be embodying his version of “cool” often placing 60s/70s “hippie” fashion or slang into a modern day setting.

But that’s an aside that matters little in the context of the film. What makes me see the film as not taking a stand one way or the other on “hippie” culture as a broad movement is that I see Tate and co. as the ‘positive’ side of hippie culture depicted in the film. I believe that Tarantino is presenting us with a preferable and more respectable (to him) version of the culture when we are at the Playboy Mansion and watching Tate and Jay Sebring (and her other friends later) hanging out. The difference is that one party is hive-minded, brainwashed, and dangerous because they don’t think for themselves, and go too far toward one side of the spectrum to the point of losing themselves. The other side is “hippie” but more balanced, participating in life, and overall seemingly well-rounded people, not blind to the beauty in their peripheries. I suppose whether or not you see the film as anti-hippie depends upon whether you view that grouping of Tate and co. as hippies, the playboy mansion party as a hippie party, etc. I don’t see how you can’t see it that way, or what else it would be, but that’s just me. I will concede that Tarantino is taking a stance against this group of ‘extreme’ hippies, though again I believe that’s because of a stance against any extreme - and thus narrow minded- group. In that way one could argue that it’s political but as I said above I believe he’s advocating for a politically grey mindset if political at all (and not political in terms of issue, just perspective).

Just to be clear this doesn’t mean an advocacy for a complex approach, just a worldview that’s flexible enough to allow for acceptance and perspective. Cliff has a pretty clearcut moral code: loyalty. To his friends and to people who don’t even remember or recognize him, to the human race. But he’s also able to see his place and recognize that his time is up and welcome the new generation by treating the new “hippie” culture with a smile when he sees them on the streets, even choosing to engage with them when the opportunity presents itself. Cliff doesn’t swear at hippies like Rick does, even when they’re in the car together. He looks and admires the beauty in what’s in front of him and sits in acceptance, not resentment, of this being ‘their’ time and not his.

SpoilerShow

He only acts out towards them with violence, both in the scene at Spahn ranch and in Rick’s home in the climax, out of loyalty and self-protection, not as revenge against hippies, remaining in accordance with his code.

I think Cliff is meant to be a more admirable character in many ways, at least in terms of attitude, than Rick, and find it difficult to see Tarantino taking an anti-hippie stance when Cliff doesn’t and Tate embodies it. But if you don’t agree with those readings of these characters, then I can see how the film would almost have to read as anti-hippie, for all you have left is the Manson family in a primary set of characters, who aren’t exactly heroes. Though I would then argue that we get plenty of other glimpses of “hippies” embedded throughout the film in our peripheries, none of which are depicted as anything but nice or kind people. They may not all have lines but their existence in the atmosphere of the film doesn’t seem to be negative; if anything they’re smiling, laughing, and interacting with positive energy.

[black&huge]

Saw it again tonight and just wanted to drop some random trivia of something I noticed this time around:

SpoilerShow

my first viewing I saw Perla Haney Jardine's name in the credited cast. She played B.B. in Kill Bill. I finally noticed where she appeared in the film: she's the Hippie that sells Cliff the acid dipped cigarette.

I also noticed he sectioned off his regulars/favorites in the end credits under "The Gang".

[Black Hat]

I suppose whether or not you see the film as anti-hippie depends upon whether you view that grouping of Tate and co. as hippies, the playboy mansion party as a hippie party, etc.

This is correct, they're not hippies. They are, tho evolving, the continuation an establishment they are replacing.

Cliff has a pretty clearcut moral code: loyalty.

Not so. The details and extent of which is left unanswered.

As for Cliff's view of hippies it was pretty clear that he didn't think much of them. His visit to the ranch was motivated by his mistrust and disdain for these people. Beyond Brad Pitt just doing cool Brad Pitt things Cliff's admirable only in the sense that he opposes Rick's impotence.

[therewillbeblus]

I suppose whether or not you see the film as anti-hippie depends upon whether you view that grouping of Tate and co. as hippies, the playboy mansion party as a hippie party, etc.

This is correct, they're not hippies. They are, tho evolving, the continuation an establishment they are replacing.

I don’t particularly like to define people by labels and agree with you that they are evolving but for the purpose of the argument I would classify them within the same hippie movement of free love/spiritedness, or the perception and drive to achieve this, as the Manson family or anyone else in the film who is young and embodying that free-floating lifestyle. I suppose then “anti-hippie” for each of us means something entirely different since we are understanding the context of the term differently. I’m describing a cultural umbrella of the period and attitude, but if the Manson family are hippies and Tate and co. aren’t then what makes one group hippies and one not? What do you define “hippie” as for this film? If it has more to do with that less well-rounded, more one-note perspective vs. the complex and balanced lifestyle of Tate and co. then we actually seem to agree on this point but use different terminology and ultimately define it differently as the product of macro vs micro systems, or larger ideologies vs very specific signifiers. Under what I believe your view of hippies are (or rather I should say the scale in which you view them) then of course the film is anti-hippie but personally I think that’s pigeonholing the attack on hippies too much.

Cliff has a pretty clearcut moral code: loyalty.

Not so. The details and extent of which is left unanswered.

As for Cliff's view of hippies it was pretty clear that he didn't think much of them. His visit to the ranch was motivated by his mistrust and disdain for these people. Beyond Brad Pitt just doing cool Brad Pitt things Cliff's admirable only in the sense that he opposes Rick's impotence.

Okay, fine, “clearcut” may have been a poor adjective. His actions as defined by what information we got from the time he was onscreen interacting with others was not complex and seemed to have a common denominator in loyalty. Was this because of duty, love, respect, care, etc. we do not know, and that’s a great point. My point was that Tarantino isn’t arguing that one must be complex in action, but rather see the world just complexly enough (not hive-minded) to be flexible in perspective to avoid the slippage into dangerous behavior (and becoming your definition of “hippies” perhaps?).

I don’t think he “thought much of” hippies but he seemed to me to be accepting of, and interested in, engaging with them, not because he was seeking them out but because they were around and he didn’t strike me as judgmental. Plus he was clearly curious and drawn to the hippie girl we saw, and not out for “poontang” necessarily even if sexual attraction was driving him I believe he was attracted to a curiosity for this new generation and life experience. But we can agree to disagree here.

[Ovader]

Jonathan Rosenbaum states 'If one could boil down the message of Tarantino's latest into a single slogan, I think it might be "Make America Great Again".'

[Roger Ryan]

Accepting Rick's or Cliff's definition of "hippie" would be the wrong way to interpret what the film is getting at, since their viewpoint is limited. Certainly Mama Cass and Michelle Phillips would be considered "hippies" and they're shown hanging out with Sharon Tate; also note the presentation of the "hippie" hitch-hiker that Tate picks up. The film is more concerned with the in-crowd vs. the out-crowd. Rick yearns to be part of the in-crowd that Tate and Polanski, and everyone else at that Playboy mansion party, represent because he perceives himself as quickly becoming part of the out-crowd. However, as Tarantino shows, the real "out-crowd" are the deluded Manson family members living outside of society on the Spahn Ranch.

One thing that hasn't been discussed yet in this thread is the actual appearance of Charles Manson...

SpoilerShow

...who is given just one early scene then vanishes from the film. All of the tension derived from Manson's appearance is brought by the viewer's understanding of who he is. But how is he actually presented? He's a guy who shows up at the house expecting to see a friend (he's probably got a new song he wants Terry Melcher or Dennis Wilson to record). When he learns the friend no longer lives there, he leaves with a smile. That's it. Later, the cult members make reference to him, but we never see his interaction with them. Tex claims Manson told him to kill everyone in Melcher's old house, but his cohorts surprisingly express some doubt (Logically, of course, who but Manson would have any idea where Melcher lived). I find this whole absence of the maniacal Manson intriguing. Why do you think Tarantino took this approach?

[Nasir007]

Jonathan Rosenbaum states 'If one could boil down the message of Tarantino's latest into a single slogan, I think it might be "Make America Great Again".'

Damn he went there.

Is the film as conservative as that?

I didn't explicitly find it so. But there is an undercurrent of questionable intent underpinning it all.

[therewillbeblus]

Accepting Rick's or Cliff's definition of "hippie" would be the wrong way to interpret what the film is getting at, since their viewpoint is limited. Certainly Mama Cass and Michelle Phillips would be considered "hippies" and they're shown hanging out with Sharon Tate; also note the presentation of the "hippie" hitch-hiker that Tate picks up. The film is more concerned with the in-crowd vs. the out-crowd. Rick yearns to be part of the in-crowd that Tate and Polanski, and everyone else at that Playboy mansion party, represent because he perceives himself as quickly becoming part of the out-crowd. However, as Tarantino shows, the real "out-crowd" are the deluded Manson family members living outside of society on the Spahn Ranch.

Exactly. I think there's also a division being made within the "hippie" culture by way of using a movement (any culture would do, but this is set in 1969) to expose different types of mindsets within a culture. For Rick, the film is about the in-crowd vs. out-crowd, and thus the film is in part as well, but there's also that underlying more macro-focused systemic outlook on the differences within said culture and the implications of the psychologies of each on action, not only within the narrative of the film but for real-life kindness or harm too. Cliff's fascination with watching the in-crowd switch acting as a more moderate voyeur contrasts Rick's attitude of rejecting the reality in front of him in an attempt to stop the magnetism of time pulling him away from his dreams. To your point about Rick's preoccupation with the in-crowd though, this goes back to the most powerful moment in the film for me, at the end when

SpoilerShow

he finally gets an entryway into this in-crowd in a full-tilt fantasy, which reflects a lot of our own desires to be a part of the in-crowd, to hang out with the "cool," which we - and certainly Tarantino - chase via the movies, and which he finally delivers here, after meditating on this desire and expanding our perspectives as to what he's really trying to accomplish with films more broadly than 'catharsis via violence.'

One thing that hasn't been discussed yet in this thread is the actual appearance of Charles Manson...

SpoilerShow

...who is given just one early scene then vanishes from the film. All of the tension derived from Manson's appearance is brought by the viewer's understanding of who he is. But how is he actually presented? He's a guy who shows up at the house expecting to see a friend (he's probably got a new song he wants Terry Melcher or Dennis Wilson to record). When he learns the friend no longer lives there, he leaves with a smile. That's it. Later, the cult members make reference to him, but we never see his interaction with them. Tex claims Manson told him to kill everyone in Melcher's old house, but his cohorts surprisingly express some doubt (Logically, of course, who but Manson would have any idea where Melcher lived). I find this whole absence of the maniacal Manson intriguing. Why do you think Tarantino took this approach?

SpoilerShow

I felt the intent was to show the effects that Manson had on his "children" by spending time with the members of this cult rather than to center focus on the man himself, which would have taken away from the impact of the dangers of diffusing identity into their collective mindset, and one could argue the extremism of the hippie movement. Manson becomes a mystical presence and the film is far more unsettling due to the times when he is not onscreen. We don't know what he's up to, and part of us wants to see and know him more, but Tarantino subverts this opportunity choosing instead to give attention to the omnipresence of his impact. What we do get is a brief scene of a seemingly normal hippie guy being polite and looking for his friends, and then leaving when asked. By refusing to give us more insight into his character, and presenting him as a "normal" person of that era, we continue to be deprived of truly "knowing" this man or the reasons why he did what he did, which emphasizes a mood in the film of this surface-level colorful and positive atmosphere with darkness brewing within, impossible to see coming. The shift in focus to the effects of the Manson family is what Tarantino seems primarily concerned with, and his only real depictions of their cult is the conversation in the car and the time at the ranch, all of which speaks to a delusional mindset that is angry (and feeling not part of the in-crowd) and projecting their lack of identity unto those who have it, choosing to attack the 'perpetrators of violence' that they feel are responsible for how they feel about themselves. This seems to be a little statement by Tarantino against his detractors, but primarily an exposition of the dangers of what the 'out-crowd' is capable of if they project and diffuse responsibility vs. act like Rick and keep trying day in and out to participate in life, work through the complicated feelings of ego-bruising and regardless of achieving a serene acceptance a la Cliff, still engage in a process of self-awareness and continuous effort that gives opportunity to be the best they can be.

[swo17]

I'm really fascinated by the use of visual effects in this, which were supervised by the great John Dykstra.
In particular, one sequence

SpoilerShow

with Dalton mentally casting himself inside of The Great Escape is very reminiscent of Forrest Gump, a film that Tarantino is a huge admirer of

SpoilerShow

I took this scene a different way--in the reality of this film, Dalton was actually originally cast in The Great Escape and shot at least that one scene for it but they decided he wasn't working and recast him with McQueen, to Dalton's great shame

[tehthomas]

I put my thoughts on the film into a blog post the other night. There are plenty of spoilers.