|
Post by JangoB on Aug 20, 2019 0:28:49 GMT
Went and saw it again today... Somehow even better the second time around, partly because now with the knowledge of how things were going to play out I was able to just completely relax into the movie's wonderful flow. I can't express how much I loved spending more time with these characters, getting to know them, hanging with them, luxuriating in the time period. And the experience of the last section of the movie was just as astonishing as during the first watch. The way the audience once again erupted when the flamethrower made its comeback appearance was just magical - believe me when I say that Russian audiences usually don't engage in any kind of emotional activity like that at the movies whereas here it's like it's impossible for people to keep their giddiness inside when this moment occurs. That's the magic of the movies right there, folks. A couple of observations: - This is decidedly less flashy and attention-grabbing from a cinematography standpoint than the other QT/Richardson collaborations but I think the work here does have to be appreciated a bit more loudly. The multiple crane shots in particular stood out to me this time - pretty great stuff with the camera flying around following characters and showing us the world of the film. - The sound design is off the charts. I loved it during my first viewing already but now it just stood out to me even more as I was able to pay a bit more attention to it. The constant presence of the radio station, the vibrant soundscape of LA streets and joints and movie sets, the car engines, the eerie ambiance in the more horror-leaning moments, the immense effect each punch possesses. It's mixed to perfection. When Pacino makes the Batman TV show sounds, his final ' ZOOM' just vibrates through you, it's so amazing. Or how about the terrific detail in the climactic sequence when each time the girl with the knife stands up and goes on screaming, they use a knife sound effect but in reverse when she jumps up! Fucking great stuff.
Also, this is probably the saddest happy ending I can remember.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Aug 20, 2019 16:17:12 GMT
There is so much to admire and love about this movie, even if the sort of conservatism at the heart of it isn't something you can agree with, it's well executed enough in numerable different areas from the performances to the subtext rippling under the surface, and riotous enough an experience (if you can bring yourself to wallow in its leisurely pace) to be able to appreciate on some level.
Then at the end it turns into the cinematic equivalent of Mark Wahlberg talking about how 9/11 wouldn't have gone down like that if he had been on that plane, and QT's fap to 60s Hollywood ends with a ruined orgasm.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Aug 25, 2019 0:46:28 GMT
Yeah ignore the boomer hippe above me. This was fucking balls. Easily QT's best film.
I really hope it nabs every fucking award out there.
Brad Pitt smashing the shit out of a hippie, if that didn't make you feel satisfied enough, it makes sense you voted for Hillary
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Aug 25, 2019 15:45:17 GMT
When Sally Menke died, so too did Tarantino. Because once again, he’s let down again by his bloated, tangent-happy ego. There are some genuinely terrific things about this movie—DiCaprio’s “acting” as Rick Dalton, the Bruce Lee fight—but the rest of it felt either superfluous or aggravatingly smug. It’s not as woefully dire as The Hateful Eight, but it feels like Tarantino’s most pedestrian effort to date, and that’s somehow worse. This film is truly pleb filter when philistine opinions like this one are provoked
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Aug 26, 2019 3:34:21 GMT
Very fitting that this thread is such a mess.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 26, 2019 4:00:00 GMT
Very fitting that this thread is such a mess. Kind of emblematic of the very film it’s discussing, albeit more fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Aug 26, 2019 18:15:29 GMT
Very fitting that this thread is such a mess. Kind of emblematic of the very film it’s discussing, albeit more fascinating. Us' thread > Once Upon a Time in Hollywood's
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Aug 27, 2019 4:07:50 GMT
So. Maybe I need more than 24 hours to solidify where I stand on it, but tbh this is an incredibly frustrating film, easily the most confounding thing I've seen from Tarantino yet. It has so much going for it and does so many things brilliantly that it's ultimately quite infuriating that he completely lacks the discipline and tact to land this thing properly. The last 20 minutes had my theater roaring with enjoyment, but I honestly can't remember the last time a major film shit the bed quite this badly in the final stretch for me. Pretty much all of my issues stem from the Manson/Tate storyline and therefore the last act, so let me go over the rest before I get to that. There actually is a brilliant film sprinkled in these 160 minutes, and it's about Rick and Cliff. I understand why so many people took issue with the pacing, but to me Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is at its best when nothing is happening and we're treated to minutes on end of these two characters hanging out and going about their businesses. There's a particular rhythm to this that's quite distinct from the rest of Tarantino's recent work, and while it's obvious why it doesn't work for everyone I took no time at all to settle into its wavelength and get into its groove. For the first two hours, it's a highly compelling, breezy watch, one that I probably wouldn't cut anything out of (which wasn’t the case with the post-Menke duo of Django Unchained or The Hateful Eight, much as I liked them). Tarantino is greatly aided in this not only by his crew, who bring this time and place to life magnificently, but also by his universally great cast. DiCaprio is flat-out brilliant here, continuing a very strong streak with yet another memorable character that showcases what a dynamic performer he is when he lets loose and taps into his comedic chops. He nails Rick's soliloquies, his neuroses and on-set antics, and like AKenjiB pointed out, the subtle stutter is a fantastic addition that he handles with incredible precision and respect. Pitt is equally impressive in a role that makes the most of his natural charisma, and it's a genuine delight to watch these two play off each other. Their rapport is enough to make an entire film out of, and I'd love to see more of it. Rick and Cliff maneuvering the film business and grappling with the looming specter of irrelevance is by far the most enjoyable element here, so it's no surprise that the film is at its best when that's front and center. Alas, instead of exploring that thread to its fullest, Tarantino swerves hard in the opposite direction in the home stretch, and that brings the whole film down a peg (or two or three or several, let’s see how it ages for me). It's right at the time jump that things begin to spiral out of control, because it's at that point that Tarantino abandons the solid foundation that he'd spent two hours cultivating and decides to reach deep into the same bag of tricks that he's employed to much more success in the past. That's when Once Upon a Time in Hollywood ceases to be the mature, elegiac epic that it's being praised as and crosses over into full-on mess territory, beginning with the baffling decision to insert an out-of-nowhere narration that lazily fills in the gaps in the plot and spells out information that could’ve easily been communicated less obviously, much like we didn’t need narration to fill in the blanks with regards to Cliff’s wife, for one. I’d be more willing to give this a pass and let it slide if Tarantino hadn’t done the exact same thing before in similarly confusing circumstances, meaning there’s a negative precedent to look to in this case. Suddenly having a voiceover explain things to the audience midway through the runtime was just as clumsy here as it was in The Hateful Eight (though at least I should be grateful that he had the sense not to voice it himself this time) because in both instances it signals a lack of effort in his writing, which didn’t use to be the case with his earlier work. I’ve come across one exceedingly generous review that hailed this decision as a clever meta move meant as a wink to the audience that purposefully hints at the existence of an author pulling strings behind the scenes and manipulating history, but even if you subscribe to that (which... I don’t) the fact remains that Tarantino hits these points elsewhere with much more grace and elegance, which would ultimately render the narration completely useless either way. The scene with Robbie at the movie theater watching the real Sharon Tate up on screen and lighting up with joy as the audience reacts to her performance is a much more playful and effective attempt at conveying those same ideas; it’s a genuinely warm moment that plays with the intersection of reality and fiction quite prettily. But that scene take place in the first two thirds, when things are still on track, so that’s that. Anyways: the narration bothered me, but nowhere near as much as the climax. Brief spoiler fest ahead. Throughout that third act, I assumed that Tarantino was building up to something as low-key and understated as everything that came before it. I deliberately avoided spoilers these past few months in order to go into this thing as blind as possible; I knew he would be fiddling around with history and subverting it in order to save Tate, but I didn’t know exactly how. By the time Cliff smoked that cigarette and went out of the house while the cult members were outside plotting their massacre, I fully expected Tarantino to do away with the killers in the most nonchalant, unceremonious way, like having Cliff accidentally run them over with Rick’s car or something to that effect. I briefly entertained the notion that the whole Manson subplot might be building up to a humorous anti-climax in which the killings are thwarted and the course of Hollywood history is forever changed due to a completely trivial and insignificant sequence of events. It’d be a subversion of audience expectations because it’d fly in the face of everything we’ve come to predict from Tarantino and from Westerns. (This is where I preemptively clarify that I’m not arrogant enough to argue that this is a better ending than the one we got; it’s just something that crossed my mind as a possible avenue the script might take because of how it was set up.)
Obviously that’s not what happens, because instead we’re treated to a hyper-violent sequence that feels plucked out of a completely different film. My issue with how Tarantino ties up the Manson/Tate storyline is twofold. The first is in the execution. I get what Tarantino was going for; others in this thread have done a good job of explaining why this sequence worked for them and why they found it so satisfying. Indeed, it feels tailor-made to get audiences elated and cheering; it’s over-the-top and humorous and never stops escalating. People leave the theater very happy with what they saw because it’s what they came for; the dude in the row ahead of mine was convulsing with glee and adrenaline. The problem is-- it’s ridiculous. Leave aside the tonal whiplash; leave aside the fact that it doesn’t gel at all with the two hours preceded it; leave aside the clumsiness of how Tarantino decided to plot each chapter of this story, meaning there’s no good transition from one to the next. The way this climax is staged, the way it’s acted, the way it’s edited-- it’s all terrible. Gone is the elegance and formal precision that made those two nearly plotless hours zip by. The sight of that one female cult member running around screaming with her arms up before she gets flamed to death was simply inexplicable. It was shocking to me that a storyline with so many magnificent set pieces (the aforementioned bit at the movie theater, the extended sequence at Spahn Ranch, which is remarkably tense and well-executed) was leading up to something this pedestrian. This climax is Tarantino giving in to all of his worst impulses; it’s the violent premature ejaculation of someone who spent 120+ pages holding it in and practicing restraint to great results, only to be let loose and blow his load all over the place before things even got going. When writing this thing he saw the low hanging fruit and threw himself at it with every ounce of strength he had; he abandoned what made sense in favor of that sweet “FUCK YEAH BASH THAT CUNT’S FACE REAL GOOD” gratification. Which -- let me be clear -- isn’t bad in and of itself ( The Hateful Eight’s hyper-violence was real fucking gratifying a lot of the time), but requires a better build-up than Tarantino gives us here. He overdoes these final scenes so badly that at first they become aggravating and then they just descend into ridiculousness. Apparently bringing up this word yields ~mixed results, but I have to echo the sentiment that this ending feels like a regression rather than a maturation. So there. The second reason why I didn’t like the Manson shit is that ultimately I just don’t think Tarantino had anything interesting to say about it. At least not enough to justify the trouble of invoking this horrifying hornet’s nest of a tragedy to use as a backdrop for a film that could’ve survived just fucking fine without it (and ultimately been much better, really). With his other forays into historical revisionism, there was a bigger, more satisfying pay-off with how he wrapped things up. Django riding off into the sunset with his beloved after exploding Candieland to oblivion and the murder of Hitler and Goebbels are both in a completely different ballpark. This, on the other hand... Tarantino has no real interest in looking deeply into any of it. He has nothing to say about Manson, his followers and the culture that bred them because they don’t exist to him as anything other than punching bags. You can argue that that’s what these monsters deserve, but Tarantino hasn’t let a character’s evilness stop him from properly developing them in the past. There’s fascinating (if incredibly challenging) material to be mined in the Manson mythos, but unlike with Django and Basterds, the dynamics and ideologies of the perpetrators as well as the institutions that keep them in place and allow them to systemically victimize their targets are not dealt with at all. Even The Hateful Eight, which wasn’t historical revisionism, was nevertheless presented as an allegory for race relations in America, so it also had that thematic ambition going for it. Some will then argue (correctly so, I imagine) that Tarantino’s intention wasn’t to approach the Manson cult the same way he did slavery, the Nazis and race in those three films; instead, he deliberately set out to strip the cult of its mystique by destroying it with no reservations or reverence. But what does he offer to substitute that with, then? Even Sharon Tate herself, the Laura Palmer that Tarantino is going back in time to save here, is not a character: she’s an ~*angelical presence*~. A supercut of all of Margot Robbie’s lines would result in a 5-minute compilation of “hey! how are you? I love you! hey girl! bye girl!” small talk. When the single most substantial line of dialogue she gets is “I loved Tess of the d’Urbervilles”, it’s pretty clear that Robbie’s feet (speaking of Quentinisms that he overdoes to shit until it gets laughable...) get more care and attention than her character. I wouldn’t begrudge his decision to keep Tate as this ethereal, elusive presence if there was more to this storyline than that, but that’s not the case. So that’s where we are. Tarantino picks this heinous massacre to use as a backdrop for his nostalgia fest, and at the end of the day he doesn’t care to say anything about either party; neither the killers nor the victims truly matter in any concrete way. So what real interest is there in making a revenge fantasy that changes this particular slice of history? Why should “it’s on purpose, it’s a fairytale” serve as an excuse? It’s especially jarring when you consider that this is an attempt to rewrite history and use fiction to save a brutally murdered wife, and yet it still uses wife murdering as a comedic punchline; it still invites us to feel immense pleasure in watching women get their faces bashed in or get mangled and burned alive in great detail, which is also presented as a hilarious punchline; it still presents Roman Polanski as a Hollywood god that literally saves our hero lead at the end of the day . Let’s chat about all that, Quentin. The great film that’s sprinkled in these 160 minutes, as I mentioned some fifteen testaments ago, doesn’t involve Manson at all. It’s Rick and Cliff chilling in all the finite glory of their bromance and old Hollywood. That would’ve been more satisfying, and Tarantino came this close to delivering that. But yeah. 2,200 WORDS, DIDN’T READ: mixed bag.
|
|
Drish
Badass
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 1,753
|
Post by Drish on Aug 27, 2019 4:21:24 GMT
Zeb31 I wish I could write half as good as that but man I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. Had it not been for that climax...😕
|
|
|
Post by SeanJoyce on Aug 27, 2019 5:17:55 GMT
(These are my thoughts copied from another forum, after seeing it for a 2nd time and revisiting all of QT's work within a 2-week span):
While I do enjoy it, I just can't rank this in the top half of his filmography...which isn't a bad thing, mind you, since his scorecard with me is error-free.
There's still a lot to process here, but the main thing is the massive contradiction I can't help but feel when assessing this as a "Tarantino movie". In some ways, it's the ultimate QT cinematic statement because it encapsulates everything that he loves about the art form and the industry that breeds it. However, his authorial voice seems "tuned out" here in favor of the massive star wattage that powers it.
My biggest issue is simply this: it features NONE of Tarantino's trademark writing or ear for dialogue.
There is just nothing that even approaches the level of "'Like a Virgin'/Tipping", "Foot Massage/Gold Watch", "Chicken and Waffles", "Superman", "Once Upon a Time in...Nazi-Occupied France", "The Legend of Broomhilda", "Black Dingus"....
I put Once Upon a Time in Hollywood near the bottom of Tarantino's catalog for the very reason that I extol much of his other work. Now you may argue that the dialogue is well-written because it doesn't call attention to itself, but I'd argue that's the very essence of Tarantino's work that attracts me.
This is easily one of Tarantino's poorest-written (and edited) movies, and that isn't just because it lacks witty, "look at me" banter between characters. He just throws a bunch of random scenes with these characters on the screen and expects us to go "ahhhh!" when the Manson cultists conspire to attack Dalton's house. It doesn't seamlessly tie all these characters together a la Pulp Fiction or culminate in an inexorable confluence between these various storylines a la Inglorious Basterds...it's Tarantino's laziest work, totally carried by the charisma of his mega-star trio.
McQueen explaining the relationship between Tate/Polanski/Sebring is hopelessly inept exposition and reaching just to simply include him. Polanski sitting outside with coffee while Tate sleeps is extraneous junk (is this really supposed to convey their idyllic time together?) Don't care what anybody else here says, the dog-feeding scene is cloying Tarantino indulgence. For as wonderfully-filmed as the Spahn Ranch scene is, it's also woefully anticlimactic...do people really think that Pitt chatting with a senile Dern is some huge payoff (and I'm aware that it was originally written for Reynolds, which maybe would have given it the aura he was striving for)? Kurt Russell's sporadic narration is cheap and dire.
Despite all that, I actually like the movie and appreciate the pleasures that it offers the movie-going public. But compared to other, far more accomplished Tarantino movies, it ranks near the bottom of his output.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Aug 27, 2019 15:49:05 GMT
McQueen explaining the relationship between Tate/Polanski/Sebring is hopelessly inept exposition and reaching just to simply include him. Yeah, I was gonna say something about this but my post was already too long. Such a pointless bit.
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Aug 27, 2019 16:42:08 GMT
What I love about the McQueen bit is that it's built up that McQueen is basically everything Rick aspires to be, becoming an enormously popular and bankable star in big screen hero roles after starting in TV, as well as beating him out for The Great Escape, but when we see McQueen off the screen, he's only just kind of like every other gossip queen that would hang out at those parties. Kind of showing off the absurdity of desperately trying to reach such a status in the long run. That's how I took it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 27, 2019 17:21:14 GMT
What I love about the McQueen bit is that it's built up that McQueen is basically everything Rick aspires to be, becoming an enormously popular and bankable star in big screen hero roles after starting in TV, as well as beating him out for The Great Escape, but when we see McQueen off the screen, he's only just kind of like every other gossip queen that would hang out at those parties. Kind of showing off the absurdity of desperately trying to reach such a status in the long run. That's how I took it anyway. I think there's a lot that could've been mined here with Rick being jealous of McQueen's success, and it could've run parallel to Cliff feeling jealous of Bruce Lee for being a stuntman who managed to cross over into mainstream stardom, something he himself could never achieve. I think they could've done so much to explore these dichotomies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 17:22:56 GMT
What I love about the McQueen bit is that it's built up that McQueen is basically everything Rick aspires to be, becoming an enormously popular and bankable star in big screen hero roles after starting in TV, as well as beating him out for The Great Escape, but when we see McQueen off the screen, he's only just kind of like every other gossip queen that would hang out at those parties. Kind of showing off the absurdity of desperately trying to reach such a status in the long run. That's how I took it anyway. Exactly! why are people having a hard time getting the ideas in this thing
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Aug 29, 2019 11:59:16 GMT
so the Manson gang came after the film Ends or what?
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 1,274
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Aug 31, 2019 18:47:18 GMT
Zeb31 What do you mean by Tarantino presenting Polanski as a Hollywood god who saves the day ?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 31, 2019 18:56:07 GMT
Zeb31 What do you mean by Tarantino presenting Polanski as a Hollywood god who saves the day ? Tarantino seems to imply that Polanski will cast Rick Dalton in his next film, thereby reviving his flagging career. And the final shot of the film mirrors a "pearly gates" scenario, so that implies that Rick is being guided to Hollywood heaven.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 1,274
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Aug 31, 2019 19:02:43 GMT
Zeb31 What do you mean by Tarantino presenting Polanski as a Hollywood god who saves the day ? Tarantino seems to imply that Polanski will cast Rick Dalton in his next film, thereby reviving his flagging career. And the final shot of the film mirrors a "pearly gates" scenario, so that implies that Rick is being guided to Hollywood heaven. And yet another reading of the film, haha, honestly it's been a while since I've had much fun dissecting or finding new meanings on a Tarantino film. But going by that reasoning, his career already had a push with the european films he just made, and I already had a vague idea of what Zeb31 was saying but I don't know why Quentin would have to chat about that, this is prior to his crime, if that's what he's reffering to
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Aug 31, 2019 19:45:26 GMT
Zeb31 What do you mean by Tarantino presenting Polanski as a Hollywood god who saves the day ? Basically what Stephen said. Earlier in the film, Rick sings Polanski's praises to Cliff, calls him one of the greatest filmmakers of the time and says that getting cast in one of his films could change everything in an instant for him by catapulting him back to the top. The conclusion of the film is therefore presented as a fairytale happy ending for Rick as much as it is for Tate: she gets to live, he gets acquainted with the Polanskis and the suggestion is that his career is boosted. To clarify what I meant with that paragraph, I don't really take issue with this bit as much as I do the way Tarantino repeatedly uses violence against women as a joke (which kinda undermines the purpose of making historical fiction whose whole selling point is to use storytelling as a way to save a real-life brutalized woman). I don't agree with the suggestion that because the events of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood take place before Polanski commits his crime that means that there's nothing at all debatable about the Polanski worship; as has already been discussed in this thread, this film requires that the viewer goes in with some very specific knowledge of Hollywood history in order to fully grasp what Tarantino's trying to convey, and that aspect of Polanski's life absolutely is part of said history, so it's totally fair game to bring that to the conversation when dissecting the film. But that's a separate discussion altogether.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 20:53:34 GMT
Zeb31 What do you mean by Tarantino presenting Polanski as a Hollywood god who saves the day ? I don't really take issue with this bit as much as I do the way Tarantino repeatedly uses violence against women as a joke (which kinda undermines the purpose of making historical fiction whose whole selling point is to use storytelling as a way to save a real-life brutalized woman) I'm not looking to change anyone's mind about the film as I've made my thoughts on it pretty clear throughout this thread, but I'd say it's in Tarantino's nature to use violence against everyone as a joke, at least during certain scenes - I know not everyone will agree with this but I don't think the over the top gruesome climax of Hollywood was supposed to be funny (obviously a lot of people thought it was, which speaks more to Tarantino's adolescent-minded audience than the film itself). Adrenalizing and unhinged? Sure. But not funny. Also, I don't think the second part is the point of the movie at all, if anything it's almost the opposite of what I felt was being conveyed.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 31, 2019 21:06:17 GMT
I don't really take issue with this bit as much as I do the way Tarantino repeatedly uses violence against women as a joke (which kinda undermines the purpose of making historical fiction whose whole selling point is to use storytelling as a way to save a real-life brutalized woman) I'm not looking to change anyone's mind about the film as I've made my thoughts on it pretty clear throughout this thread, but I'd say it's in Tarantino's nature to use violence against everyone as a joke, at least during certain scenes - I know not everyone will agree with this but I don't think the over the top gruesome climax of Hollywood was supposed to be funny (obviously a lot of people thought it was, which speaks more to Tarantino's adolescent-minded audience than the film itself). Adrenalizing and unhinged? Sure. But not funny. Also, I don't think the second part is the point of the movie at all, if anything it's almost the opposite of what I felt was being conveyed. Eh, while I can see where you're coming from in that Tarantino generally is equal-opportunity when it comes to violence, he really leans into it with the two female members of the killer trio. Even though we come into the film with historical context on who they are, the fact of the matter is that the film really, really wallows in Atkins and Krenwinkel's demises. Tex's death is treated as a sight gag more than anything else, but I walked away from the movie thinking more about how the women were savagely dispatched. And for a film whose nascent reason for existing is to prevent a historical brutalization of a group of innocents (including the paragon of virtue that Sharon Tate is portrayed as), to still rely on gruesome violence to cheer and root for comes off as a tad, as you say, adolescent. And if Tarantino was going to go that far with it, why not bring Manson into it? He is the symbol of the death of the '60s/free love movement, and the film made the effort to show him in that brief scene, while building him up as this big force that Cliff will someday face by the amount of times he's mentioned at Spahn Ranch.
You don't have to agree, as it's clear that the film worked for you, but there comes a point when violence becomes less of a well-intentioned joke and more like an Itchy 'n' Scratchy cartoon, and Tarantino has devolved into cartoonish level in his last few films.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 1,274
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Aug 31, 2019 21:31:47 GMT
Zeb31 What do you mean by Tarantino presenting Polanski as a Hollywood god who saves the day ? Basically what Stephen said. Earlier in the film, Rick sings Polanski's praises to Cliff, calls him one of the greatest filmmakers of the time and says that getting cast in one of his films could change everything in an instant for him by catapulting him back to the top. The conclusion of the film is therefore presented as a fairytale happy ending for Rick as much as it is for Tate: she gets to live, he gets acquainted with the Polanskis and the suggestion is that his career is boosted. To clarify what I meant with that paragraph, I don't really take issue with this bit as much as I do the way Tarantino repeatedly uses violence against women as a joke (which kinda undermines the purpose of making historical fiction whose whole selling point is to use storytelling as a way to save a real-life brutalized woman). I don't agree with the suggestion that because the events of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood take place before Polanski commits his crime that means that there's nothing at all debatable about the Polanski worship; as has already been discussed in this thread, this film requires that the viewer goes in with some very specific knowledge of Hollywood history in order to fully grasp what Tarantino's trying to convey, and that aspect of Polanski's life absolutely is part of said history, so it's totally fair game to bring that to the conversation when dissecting the film. But that's a separate discussion altogether. Well, I’m playing a bit of devil’s advocate here because reading your review that’s pretty much where I land as well, but one thing that keeps me going back is the way certain aspects come across, exactly becasue the ackowledge that we have from now, in fact the only way I see the final act not making noise at all is the conciousness of the viewer and know what really happened, and imo that’s kind of a bold move nowadays, it’s a double-edge sword, but I’d felt that the joke’s on me if taken it just like violence, is so over the top that can’t be taken seriously anymore. It’s a weird state of mind, no doubt about it. It has been described even as therapeutic, but that needs the knowledge. I think Once Upon… is a constant meta exercise and a conversation between past and present and that could be the entry point to many scenes, not saying that’s the only way should be read, but in ex. To me Cliff’s clip with her wife only suggest the murder, and Cliff builds that reputation based on that ( just like many Hollywood rumors or cases that later on proof its veracity ) yet Rick still be friends with him, but it’s not the only way he’s portraying women, in any case, there’s a conciousness, there’s the final scene between Rick and Trudi. Same dissecting excersise to the Polanski bit and where do we stand with artists. This is a film of many contradictions for lack of a better worrd, even within characters, but I don’t see it as a bad way, in any case, creatres a wider dialogue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 21:56:55 GMT
I'm not looking to change anyone's mind about the film as I've made my thoughts on it pretty clear throughout this thread, but I'd say it's in Tarantino's nature to use violence against everyone as a joke, at least during certain scenes - I know not everyone will agree with this but I don't think the over the top gruesome climax of Hollywood was supposed to be funny (obviously a lot of people thought it was, which speaks more to Tarantino's adolescent-minded audience than the film itself). Adrenalizing and unhinged? Sure. But not funny. Also, I don't think the second part is the point of the movie at all, if anything it's almost the opposite of what I felt was being conveyed. Eh, while I can see where you're coming from in that Tarantino generally is equal-opportunity when it comes to violence, he really leans into it with the two female members of the killer trio. Even though we come into the film with historical context on who they are, the fact of the matter is that the film really, really wallows in Atkins and Krenwinkel's demises. Tex's death is treated as a sight gag more than anything else, but I walked away from the movie thinking more about how the women were savagely dispatched. And for a film whose nascent reason for existing is to prevent a historical brutalization of a group of innocents (including the paragon of virtue that Sharon Tate is portrayed as), to still rely on gruesome violence to cheer and root for comes off as a tad, as you say, adolescent. And if Tarantino was going to go that far with it, why not bring Manson into it? He is the symbol of the death of the '60s/free love movement, and the film made the effort to show him in that brief scene, while building him up as this big force that Cliff will someday face by the amount of times he's mentioned at Spahn Ranch.
You don't have to agree, as it's clear that the film worked for you, but there comes a point when violence becomes less of a well-intentioned joke and more like an Itchy 'n' Scratchy cartoon, and Tarantino has devolved into cartoonish level in his last few films.
That's a fair criticism of the movie, but again, I don't think the point of the film is to "prevent" the Tate murders from happening - that's just one element of the story, not so much what I felt Tarantino was primarily trying to hammer home - so much as reflect on *things* unfairly lost through the twisted lens of Hollywood dreamers (who I don't think are even meant to be seen as good people themselves). Honestly we don't disagree much when it comes to QT, just this film. Everything you're saying here nails many of my problems with The Hateful Eight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 22:01:12 GMT
Also kind of off topic but do you guys think when The Irishman comes out it'll generate as much discussion as this bad boy did on here? This has to be one of the longest threads on the forum that's about a single film that's been released (in other words, not a mega-thread being updated with all the new info about something upcoming).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 31, 2019 22:22:06 GMT
Also kind of off topic but do you guys think when The Irishman comes out it'll generate as much discussion as this bad boy did on here? This has to be one of the longest threads on the forum that's about a single film that's been released (in other words, not a mega-thread being updated with all the new info about something upcoming). I dunno I mean so far stephen hasn't liked that trailer and today he shouted out J esse Plemons which is great and all but is sort of like going to a fancy ice cream parlor and ordering the vanilla in a cup. Um. Kdding, kidding. It's hard to judge how much excitement is there for it - you would think 10 pages on the acting, 10 pages on CGI, 10 pages of "God that was long", 10 pages of "That amazing Scorsese shot........" ..........it certainly has the potential to be a scrolling nightmare thread.
|
|