Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

Started by jenkins, December 03, 2017, 05:47:53 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeremy Blackman

Caught this again. Interesting experience. Rick & Cliff's bromance was less powerful on rewatch (not much left on the table to discover, I suppose).

Starting to convince myself that not only does Margot Robbie have the best performance, but Sharon Tate is the heart of the film, and the film is really about her and the Manson family. Cliff and Rick are accessories and complements to Sharon Tate's story. Any sane person would believe the opposite, that this is obviously Rick's story, but I think OUATIH is very sneakily all about Sharon Tate.

Robbie's performance is masterful. A perfect demonstration of less is more. We actually get so much information about Sharon Tate in this movie — more than we get about Cliff, arguably. My favorite moment is her reaction to Charles Manson's visit.

Also apparent on rewatch is the insane level of craftsmanship that went into this film, from script to post-production. Fun example: Steve McQueen says "I didn't stand a chance" (with Sharon); Rick later says "I didn't stand a chance" referring to a role that Steve McQueen ended up getting.

Drenk

I was disappointed on the lack of scenes between Rick and Cliff, they spend most of the movie apart. I wish we had more time to hang with both of them.
Ascension.

Jeremy Blackman

I disagree; I think that's another case of "less is more." We get all we need. They have 2 particularly intense moments of friendship, in my opinion: the obvious one ("you're a good friend, Cliff") and the scene where Cliff watches Rick's episode with him and they do a running commentary.

I actually love that they split up. It allows us to have an A story, B story, and C story for the middle section of the film, structured (fittingly) like an episode of television, as these 3 characters go on their separate adventures (Rick, Cliff, and Sharon).

Drenk

The story is also about them growing apart, professionaly, but I'm sure there could have been a place for some kind of flashback to show what kind of dynamic they had in their prime—or maybe he always used to be his shadow, silently sitting in the back. Personally, I love the scene when Rick starts crying and Cliff gives his glasses to him.
Ascension.

jviness02

If anyone is interested, the artist for Rick Dalton's TV Guide and MAD cover is selling prints of his work. They aren't expensive. $10 for the TV Guide cover.

https://www.tomrichmond.com/store/

I picked up one of each to frame with my OUATIH poster.

Ravi

Director Boots Riley Calls Out Quentin Tarantino For Not Depicting Manson Family As White Supremacists In 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood'
By BRENT FURDYK. 1 hour ago

Boots Riley has been known to speak his mind, and the director of critically acclaimed sci-fi comedy "Sorry to Bother You" is taking aim at Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" for failing to depict one particular aspect of Charles Manson's followers.

In the film, stuntman Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) picks up a hippie hitchhiker named Pussycat (Margaret Qualley), which leads him to encounter Manson's followers living in a commune on the Spahn Movie Ranch, a famed location for TV and movie westerns, owned by dairy farmer George Spahn (played in the film by Bruce Dern).

In a subsequent scene, a few of Manson's acolytes are on their way to murder Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) at her home when they're accosted by her neighbour, margarita-swilling TV star Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), who chews them out for their car's noisy muffler.

Recognizing Dalton from his hit TV series "Bounty Law", Manson's followers have an impromptu change of plans, declaring that all the fake murders they witnessed on television is deserving of punishment.

"My idea is to kill the people who taught us to kill," says one Manson follower as they decide to target Dalton instead, a diversion from reality that sets the film's grand finale in motion.

However, Riley points out that Tarantino is glossing over a key element of Manson's twisted philosophy: he and his followers were white supremacists, and their murder spree was intended to spark a black-vs.-white race war.

"The Manson Family were overt white supremacists who tried to start a race war with the goal of killing black folks," Riley tweeted. "They weren't 'hippies' spouting left critiques of media. They were rightwingers. This fact flips Tarantino's allegory on its head."

Tarantino has yet to respond to Riley's claims.

jviness02


Alethia

Manson was for sure a racist, and it is credible that the ones who participated in the killings were instructed to make the crimes look like the work of the Black Panthers, but they were most certainly not a collective of overt white supremacists, or certifiable "right-wingers." I think it was more opportunistic in that regard than anything else. And much of the "race war" aspect of the official Helter Skelter narrative has been debunked. Manson never believed that shit for a second, and only the most feeble-minded of the bunch likely took it to heart. It was just an excuse to kill some "piggies".

Alethia

Quote from: jviness02 on August 26, 2019, 01:37:43 PM
If anyone is interested, the artist for Rick Dalton's TV Guide and MAD cover is selling prints of his work. They aren't expensive. $10 for the TV Guide cover.

https://www.tomrichmond.com/store/

I picked up one of each to frame with my OUATIH poster.

Got the TV Guide one personalized at no extra charge with "8 goddamn fuckin' whiskey sours!"  :)

Drenk

It's ironic that by wanting to restore the facts, some people are promoting a less complex picture. Nobody is wondering why Tatantino doesn't include their motivations? It's pure contempt. Does highlighting the ridiculousness of these lost, neurotic hippies is disrespectful? Look, even the racial angle is dumb as hell: if they'd kill black people, I'd understand wanting to include, you know, the racism. But the whole thing is batshit crazy. Is this a way to minimize the racism to believe that it was some sort of pretext? I don't think so.

Also: Tarantino doesn't care about the socio, political environment, hippies and all. I think he managed to avoid all this without losing depth.
Ascension.

wilberfan

Well, I just returned from a second viewing.

I was hoping zero expectations this time might allow me to enjoy it more, but the best I could do was dislike it a little less.  The first two acts were not as much of a slog this time (the time passed much more quickly)--but still too many scenes that went on too long. Unfortunately, I hated the third act even MORE this time. (I didn't think that was possible.)  It occurred to me the most appropriate word for it is ridiculous.  It just undoes everything that came before.

I'm glad I went and watched it with less anticipatory excitement and more of a dispassionate critical eye.  It confirmed that all of my original impressions haven't changed.

[edit]  I really picked up on Rick's pronounced stutter this time around.  Anyone have any thoughts on that?   

jenkins

do you think it's better or worse than Legends of the Fall

wilberfan

That's such an oddly specific question, I can't tell if your fuckin' with me or not.   I don't remember Legends that well, so I'll just say I enjoyed Seven Years in Tibet more than I did OUATIH.

Alethia

Fair enough. Ya certainly gave it a good shake.

wilberfan

Thanks for that.  It's been eatin' at me since last month.  I feel like such an outlier (especially here!  I still can't believe I'm the ONLY Xixax'er that had serious issues with this film..."Hey, Lurkers!  Back me up here, will ya?!") that I had to give it another (less excited) chance.   I think I can chill about it now--until early next year when it wins all the Oscars.