I will be straight up — I love movies. I’ve only known a few people who genuinely don’t enjoy movies or have the audacity to say “I don’t watch TV,” so enjoying them doesn’t make me a special person. That said, I’ve gotten lost in both the world of production and the final outcome a lot, starting from my formative years. I’ve wanted to have every part in a film crew at least once, so it made sense for me to do film analysis in college.
Here’s the thing though– I felt like a lot of my film analysis classes were underwhelming. It felt like the same three people offered the same opinions, and my global film class was all based on indie movies and not films that defined a genre. I was hoping I’d be watching Miyazaki and Fellini, and while I got ONE Iñárritu film I just felt short changed (no offense to my professor, because she was super nice and let me talk). Each week, we’d be asked what we thought of each movie, and the same three people would just repeat “Oh that was the greatest movie ever, SO important, SO impactful,” and I would just turn to them, notice no other hands, then raise mine and say “I’m sorry, these were fine movies, but this isn’t the greatest thing ever put into theatres. I was bored and unimpressed.”
Which brings me to my man Quentin Tarantino, and his latest film “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.” A few weeks ago I posted that “Inglorious Basterds” is one of my favorite movies, and I stand by that. Well scripted, incredible acting, perfect degrees of suspense with a delicious payoff.
That said, “Once Upon in Hollywood” felt like an amalgam of a lot of the problems I have with Tarantino, and the way he’s heralded in the media.
Tarantino comes off, at least in his interviews and his films, like the ultimate troll. He knows that a lot of people hate his work for both the gratuitous violence and the way he treats women (save for “Jackie Brown” and “Kill Bill”). With that, he cranks it up a notch, beats Jennifer Jason Leigh in the face, and basically takes a trip to Costco to buy ketchup at a discount to create a Jackson Pollak painting as a template for how bloody his action scenes should be. When people ask him why, he says why not, with the cheekiest grin. He delights in being that guy and to that, I do salute him. He is unapologetic in being himself.
I wouldn’t call him untalented, either. Again, I loved “Inglorious Basterds” and thoroughly enjoyed “Django Unchained.” I genuinely don’t understand the hullaballoo of “Pulp Fiction,” and I literally cried during “The Hateful Eight” because I couldn’t believe how much I hated it. I got mad at my dad for driving me to the movie theatre to see it.
Up until “The Hateful Eight,” though, I thought that Tarantino could do no wrong (I appreciated “Pulp Fiction”‘s impact, even if I thought that it was just all right). Even after I saw that movie I thought “Hey, no one’s perfect. He’s gotta have at least one stinker.” Turns out I was not alone in that sentiment, but others called it the best movie of the year.
In the time between “The Hateful Eight” and “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” I could discover all the reasons one would hate Tarantino: his use of the “n” word (his own use of it and the abuse of it), his violent tendencies, his misogynistic undertones (including and not limited to his close partnership with Harvey Weinstein), and yes… the foot thing.
The first thing that threw me off my game during “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” was that rumor about him having an obsession with feet. I had never noticed it, though I will concede that the scene with Diane Krueger’s reveal in “Inglorious Basterds” is a hint to it, when you put it in that context. Now, I don’t know if this is just Tarantino doing Tarantino and taking it up to eleven, but almost EVERY female character in that movie was barefoot, ranging from Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie could do any movie and I’d see it) to a greasy Dakota Fanning as Squeaky Fromme (“She is… DIFFICULT.”) to Brad Pitt’s jailbait love interest “Pussycat,” played by Margaret Qualley. At a certain point the line has to be drawn. I’m not drawing a line, it’s more like a note that says “Hey man, you good, or…?”
Secondly and MOST importantly, to me, is that the phrase “Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino” is iconic and means you’re in for a good time. A long time and a good time. He’s a fantastic director, and every frame is truly a painting. That said, I feel like his movies (and yes, I do mean all of them), have scenes that are just… there. You could crunch those scenes down to thirty seconds and not lose any of the plot or artistry. “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” was no exception.
Half of Rick Dalton’s scenes were unnecessary. SO much exposition, SO much unneeded dialogue. We get it: his character has seen more successful days and his craft is waning because he’s an alcoholic. That’s literally an hour of a movie with multiple plot lines.
This is NO SHADE TO MY BOY LEO. You’re an angel and we’re thrilled you’re here.
As well, almost the entirety of the Bruce Lee sequence was unnecessary. Now if that was all just a reason for us to get Brad Pitt working on a rooftop in only a pair of jeans reminiscing on his reason for not getting hired to stunt for this day’s set, then fine. I’ll allow it. He is in wonderful shape. Good for Brad. Yay Brad. Five stars for Brad.
Spoiler alert: the gist of the scene is that Brad Pitt’s character, Cliff Booth, is deadly strong and could have killed Bruce Lee on a shoot had someone not intervened. People took issue with this scene because of the depiction of Lee as arrogant (“My fists are lethal weapons” is a loose paraphrase of one of his lines). According to those close to Bruce Lee, he kept to himself because he was scared already of being a minority in a predominantly white industry. It’s sad knowing that he was borderline self conscious of his own talent out of fear of discrimination and racism. You could revise that whole scene into thirty seconds of Cliff CAUSING the trouble, egging Lee to punch him, and Lee sheepishly refusing but then agreeing because it’d be a fun scrap. Boom! Cliff proves he can take and deliver a punch in thirty seconds, Lee’s ego remains intact, no one’s offended, and we prove that Cliff is a troublemaker who can’t be trusted onset.
There’s also a brief mention that Cliff probably killed his wife. Reviews have taken issue with the speculation regarding whether or not he killed his wife or it was an accident or it’s a rumor (most are using it as cannon fodder to support the theory that Tarantino is a sexist who delights in abusing women). I don’t think it’s that deep, and yet…
Later in the movie (more spoilers), Cliff visits where the Manson family resides in an abandoned film ranch, and beats up a hippie for stabbing a tire on his boss’s car. I personally think it would have been a fun payoff to have rumors buzz for the first hour about how strong Cliff was, but not actually getting a chance to see it until that one moment where he bludgeons the guy to a pulp to repair the tire. Now that we know that he stands a chance against Bruce Lee, it’s less fun. BUT that’s one gal’s opinion, whomst am I to judge Tarantino’s choice there?
The long, drawn out scenes with unnecessary monologues and dialogue feel like the result of a writer who was never told “Hey, this isn’t very good.” I saw a tweet that someone shared, exasperatedly commenting “Not another first draft that made it to screen” in reference to this movie. I kind of agree. There’s just 1-3 scenes too many in each Tarantino film.
To me, it just feels like Tarantino takes the criticism as a personal attack (he’s lashed out at interviewers before who question his choices), rather than an artistic perspective. To that point, I feel like Tarantino’s work is often polarizing. Those who love Tarantino defend his every move. If you insult or disparage his work in a film class, a film forum, or just tweet about it on Twitter, you can expect some nasty feedback.
I didn’t hate this movie: everyone’s acting was sublime. Leo DiCaprio and Bradd Pitt are QUITE the dynamic duo. I hope Margaret Qualley gets more opportunities to shine, because I particularly liked her. Leo DiCaprio’s plotline involves a scene with a young child actor named Trudi Fraser. Her portrayer, Julia Butters, must be protected at all costs. I will build an orb around her to protect her from the world. I’m pretty sure she could handle the world without blinking an eye but I still won’t stand for anyone bullying her ever. The scenery/cinematography is stunning. Tarantino’s use of Margot Robbie is exactly what it should have been, even if I was disappointed by it (I wanted her to have more screen time, but the whole point of her side of the story is that Sharon was just starting out her career. She had so much potential, but we barely got to see it before she was murdered).
The ending is ten of the most satisfying minutes I’ve experienced in a movie theater, though I will admit, if you have no idea who Sharon Tate is or the significance of the Manson Family murders, you will be very confused by the movie’s ending. To that effect, “Inglorious Basterds” and “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” both provide an amazing “What if…?” scenario, but in truth, reality is stranger than fiction. Demented monsters destroyed because they could.
Tarantino has said that he wants to retire by 60, and though this is uncertain, he’s said before that he wants to make ten really good movies before retiring. It looks like his next will be his last. A lot of current rumblings say his finale will/should be a horror film. I would very much look forward to that; I personally think that today’s cinema is headed towards a new era of dark humor and black comedy. Tarantino’s dialogue is good and he writes strong characters. I think the wheels are in motion for this black comedy/funny horror boom, thanks to movies like “Get Out” and “Midsommar”, but I think that at this rate, the slingshot’s in hand and the projectile is is in the rubber slot. If Tarantino decides to shoot, he’ll leave behind a legacy. Ready… aim…
