Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)
All I knew about this film before my viewing was that it included a fictional 1960s actor, Rick, with a dwindling career, his stunt double, Cliff, and the Manson family. In all honestly, I didn’t need any further information. In typical Quentin Tarantino style, I was thrown details seemingly at random, which would pay off later. Tarantino knows how to structure a narrative and this late addition to his oeuvre was no exception. I felt confused throughout, at worst bored, but this film takes some patience to get to its climax.
The question is, was I invested? I can appreciate the story, a love letter to old Hollywood but with many unexpected twists. I can’t in good conscience claim that Tarantino doesn’t still have a few tricks up his sleeve. But to finally answer the question, no I didn’t entirely enjoy this film.
Who is this film for? It seems that the setting of the 1960s is a good excuse to once again focus on white male leads. But then again, when does any director need an excuse? This has become a personal diatribe against Tarantino and the top tier of directors working in film, most of them being men and most of them being white. But this is my blog, so deal with it.
It was hard for me to even motivate myself to watch this film. As a feminist viewer it’s hard to watch a film by a director who I know was abusive to his cast. Uma Thurman has criticised him for her treatment during the filming of Kill Bill. There was also something very meta about a problematic director including another highly problematic director in his film in the form of Roman Polanski. There was no comment on Polanski’s troubled history. The director has been living outside of the States for some time now following allegations of sexual abuse. But this a retelling of history, a cherry picking of events passed for the purposes of a compelling story. Polanski is just a side character, but his presence felt heavy on my screen.
But there will always be audiences for these films. On its merits alone, this film is high quality. The camera work is sharp and unexpected. A lot of the film seemed to be an excuse to show beautiful women doing the twist, and shoes. So many shots of shoes. And long form shots of people driving, because what is an old Hollywood film without its many beautiful cars. It’s also refreshing to watch a noteworthy film with an emphasis on the quirky, with a few decent jokes. I did laugh a few times at our characters getting into ridiculous situations. The 1960s setting meant that the costuming and sets were a highlight. And of course, this film had a great score.
Pitt’s Cliff and Leonardo DiCaprio’s Rick were an entertaining pair. The actors’ chemistry was integral to the plot and that really worked. Both characters were at odds in their careers, most likely a stand in for Tarantino’s own musings about the trajectory of his late career in film making. Many critics have sung this film’s praises and proclaimed that Tarantino still has it in him, these comments are telling in themselves.
Margot Robbie was a fine Sharon Tate. I think for such a talented actor at the high point of her career, she wasn’t really given a lot to do. She just had to be a glamorous woman and do some dancing mainly. I imagine that Robbie brought the same dedication to this role as she does all her parts, but she already possesses the je ne sai quoi of an old Hollywood star. She shows up, walks and drives a lot, has shoes, flashes her stunning smile, and then the scene is over. She didn’t even seem to have many lines in this film. Regardless, I’m sure she did a better job than Hilary Duff in the Haunting of Sharon Tate (2019). Poor Hilary, there’s no way even the most well-regarded actor could pull off that dumpster fire.
There is something to be said for a distinctive style and this film felt like a quintessential Tarantino film. If you are a fan, you will get your money’s worth and then some. I don’t know why I didn’t anticipate the violence in this film, but it is mostly somewhat quiet for a Tarantino film, until it’s not.
The retelling of historical events was an interesting concept. I think this film is really elevated by its inclusion of the endlessly fascinating Manson family. I’m intrigued by this creepy cult. The scenes with the cult were fittingly creepy, and I would say, the most effective part of the film.
I think a lot of the subtext of this film was lost on me, I’m not a fan of old Hollywood greats, nor am I a fan of westerns. Rick’s time on set was the dullest part of the film for me. I think there is still enjoyment to be had therein even if you aren’t a film nerd. As you can probably tell, I’m also not a huge fan of Tarantino, but despite that I still appreciate this film for what it is. There was a clever narrative arc. But did I really care? Honestly not really. It's not my favourite film in recent years.
The question is, was I invested? I can appreciate the story, a love letter to old Hollywood but with many unexpected twists. I can’t in good conscience claim that Tarantino doesn’t still have a few tricks up his sleeve. But to finally answer the question, no I didn’t entirely enjoy this film.
Who is this film for? It seems that the setting of the 1960s is a good excuse to once again focus on white male leads. But then again, when does any director need an excuse? This has become a personal diatribe against Tarantino and the top tier of directors working in film, most of them being men and most of them being white. But this is my blog, so deal with it.
It was hard for me to even motivate myself to watch this film. As a feminist viewer it’s hard to watch a film by a director who I know was abusive to his cast. Uma Thurman has criticised him for her treatment during the filming of Kill Bill. There was also something very meta about a problematic director including another highly problematic director in his film in the form of Roman Polanski. There was no comment on Polanski’s troubled history. The director has been living outside of the States for some time now following allegations of sexual abuse. But this a retelling of history, a cherry picking of events passed for the purposes of a compelling story. Polanski is just a side character, but his presence felt heavy on my screen.
But there will always be audiences for these films. On its merits alone, this film is high quality. The camera work is sharp and unexpected. A lot of the film seemed to be an excuse to show beautiful women doing the twist, and shoes. So many shots of shoes. And long form shots of people driving, because what is an old Hollywood film without its many beautiful cars. It’s also refreshing to watch a noteworthy film with an emphasis on the quirky, with a few decent jokes. I did laugh a few times at our characters getting into ridiculous situations. The 1960s setting meant that the costuming and sets were a highlight. And of course, this film had a great score.
Pitt’s Cliff and Leonardo DiCaprio’s Rick were an entertaining pair. The actors’ chemistry was integral to the plot and that really worked. Both characters were at odds in their careers, most likely a stand in for Tarantino’s own musings about the trajectory of his late career in film making. Many critics have sung this film’s praises and proclaimed that Tarantino still has it in him, these comments are telling in themselves.
Margot Robbie was a fine Sharon Tate. I think for such a talented actor at the high point of her career, she wasn’t really given a lot to do. She just had to be a glamorous woman and do some dancing mainly. I imagine that Robbie brought the same dedication to this role as she does all her parts, but she already possesses the je ne sai quoi of an old Hollywood star. She shows up, walks and drives a lot, has shoes, flashes her stunning smile, and then the scene is over. She didn’t even seem to have many lines in this film. Regardless, I’m sure she did a better job than Hilary Duff in the Haunting of Sharon Tate (2019). Poor Hilary, there’s no way even the most well-regarded actor could pull off that dumpster fire.
There is something to be said for a distinctive style and this film felt like a quintessential Tarantino film. If you are a fan, you will get your money’s worth and then some. I don’t know why I didn’t anticipate the violence in this film, but it is mostly somewhat quiet for a Tarantino film, until it’s not.
The retelling of historical events was an interesting concept. I think this film is really elevated by its inclusion of the endlessly fascinating Manson family. I’m intrigued by this creepy cult. The scenes with the cult were fittingly creepy, and I would say, the most effective part of the film.
I think a lot of the subtext of this film was lost on me, I’m not a fan of old Hollywood greats, nor am I a fan of westerns. Rick’s time on set was the dullest part of the film for me. I think there is still enjoyment to be had therein even if you aren’t a film nerd. As you can probably tell, I’m also not a huge fan of Tarantino, but despite that I still appreciate this film for what it is. There was a clever narrative arc. But did I really care? Honestly not really. It's not my favourite film in recent years.
I watched this film on Apple TV and I put it off for so long, it was about to expire. So, don’t do that. This film is great for Tarantino fans, entertaining if you are ambivalent to his work, and absolutely dire if you hate gratuitous violence. Proceed with caution.
Comments
Post a Comment