Skip to main content

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood
(2019)

(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

It’s additionally a sign of something, although I don’t know that it’s anything good, that Tarantino has reached such rarefied heights that Hollywood’s being seriously talked about in some quarters as a contender for the Best Picture Oscar. Or perhaps that’s merely reflective of the current dearth of significantly original or quality material. I mean, I’ll give Hollywood credit for this, despite the entirely – intentionally – derivative title, and that revisionist ending repeat of Inglourious Basterds: it doesn’t feel like any other movie out there, even among its director’s own oeuvre. That’s not necessarily a vote of confidence, for many and various reasons, but it is an interesting thing, and from that perspective, Hollywood might be his most fascinating film since, well Pulp Fiction, probably. Certainly, since Roger Avary ceased being involved with his scripts.

Interesting and fascinating aren’t necessarily in the best interests of telling a great story, of course. There are plenty of interesting and fascinating failures out there that singularly don’t do that, and Tarantino’s ninth film has a lot more in common with massive follies than it does the kind of picture suggesting an auteur operating at the peak of their powers. You can see more clearly than ever with Hollywood how it’s almost an accident that Tarantino fell into the biggest sandpit possible to be able to play with his imagination-spawned toys. Forget about a Vega Brothers or a Kill Bill Vol. 3; the fact that he’s even talked about making some episodes of Bounty Law (and has written five) – fat chance – indicates a potentially endless universe on his part melding Hollywood fact and fiction, one where he’s happy to opine on the ins and outs of whether stuntman Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) could beat Bruce Lee in a fight (and lest the furore over this seems misspent – and hilarious and riveting as the sequence is – the concerns over implied racism in an all-American fictional guy being able to whoop Bruce’s ass are not an unreasonable, however big a fan Tarantino professes to be of the martial arts star).

The first two hours of Hollywood meander contentedly in an entirely unfocussed fashion, to the point where you begin to wonder if Tarantino is purposefully taking the piss, that you’re the subject of some elaborate joke whereby he’s seeing how long he can tantalise you, the viewer, before you realise than no, actually, he isn’tgoing anywhere with any of this (that sensation still hasn’t entirely left me). I mean, he does, sort of, go somewhere, but it’s the biggest shaggy dog story there is, for a payoff that’s something of a purple patch.

Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is well-past his career best, a former TV series headliner now reduced to villain guest spots and the prospect of going to Italy to star in spaghetti westerns (which, despite Tarantino’s veneration, are hardly a badge of pride unless directed by Leone; I’ve never been much of a Corbucci fan). We follow Dalton through his meetings with Al Pacino’s agent Marvin Schwartz (a great Pacino part, increasingly pot luck these days), in which he sets out for the not exactly Brainiac Dalton why his career is on a terminal trajectory, and onto the set of Lancer for a protracted, often painful bad guy spot. There’s some very amusing/excruciating material here, from Dalton spending a clutch of scenes doing little more than stammering, spitting, hacking and chain smoking, to fluffing his lines and furiously engaging in a self-berating in his trailer, to an acting pep talk from Julia Butters’ child star that culminates in his being touchingly/ mockingly validated.

None of this seems àpropos anything much at all, particularly when we jump forward six months and Dalton’s back from Italy with a wife (Lorenza Izzo) and the inevitability of having to let Cliff go. Indeed, bringing in Kurt Russell (well, Kurt’s already there for a cameo) to narrate the chronology of the events of the day of the (first) Manson murders, only entwined with and irrevocably affected by the wild card of Dalton and Booth, adds to the impression that Quentin’s suddenly remembered he’s supposed to be telling a story here, so he’d better bring the threads together in something approaching a manner that resembles coherence, yet actually seems to be waywardly emphasising happenstance.

Instead of busting in on Tate et al, it’s Dalton’s house they invade, with resulting brutal consequences for the trio. And the upshot for Dalton, besides getting to use his flamethrower for real (previously used in a movie that wouldn’t have looked out of place at the climax of Basterds), is that he gets inducted into a new family, having inadvertently saved Tate from the Manson one. Who knows what Polanski pictures Rick’ll appear in, or what advice Cliff may give Roman about steering clear of underage liaisons.

Rick Dalton: It's official, old buddy. I'm a has-been.
DiCaprio is having a ball, in a role where he’s able to bring to the fore the full arsenal of self-conscious (as in, hoisted by the petard of their own perceived self-worth and lack thereof) actorly tics and quirks. It’s probably the most fun he’s been outside of Jordan Belforth (although Django Unchained is also on the leader board). And he and Pitt perfectly complement each other.

Every way in which Dalton is highly strung and on edge, Booth is contrastingly laid back and unflappable (I love the moment where he and Dalton go to their farewell meal, and – having been privy to the murky suggestions regarding the fate of his former spouse – someone he knows at a nearby table quips “Hey, how’s the wife?”) Pitt is uber-cool here, so much so, he’s able to rock a white denim ensemble; his personal life consists of a dog and a trailer – and, naturally, comic books – and a reliance on the slumming it Dalton for subsistence, but he is, to all outward appearances, existentially at peace. What we’re supposed to make of that unreadable confidence is a different matter; he is, intentionally, inscrutable in the sense of many a steely-eyed hero of the period; Tarantino provides enough ambiguity that he could be a blithe sociopath (it's definitely a role you could imagine Madsen in, in a low budget take), but one to be inversely celebrated by his audience in the Dirty Harry sense of movie cool.

Bruce Lee: It was a friendly contest. He barely touched me.

The Bruce Lee scene, apart from anything else re Bruce, serves to emphasise Cliff really is a badass, such that when the climax comes in all its gory glory, we really aren’t surprised at his one-man carnage army. Most amusing, however, is the manner in which this forms a bookend to Pitt’s first Tarantino role, in True Romance, where his couch-potato stoner Floyd – reputedly not so far from Pitt’s actual narcotic diet of choice – responds to a home invasion with a passive “Don’t condescend to me, man. I’ll fuckin’ kill ya, man” while capable of nothing of the sort. Here, Cliff is similarly uncertain as to whether those entering Rick’s house are the result of a drug-fuelled hallucination – he has just smoked an acid-dipped cigarette – before responding decisively when it becomes evident they are (I particularly love the use of dog food tin as a weapon, since he’s been holding it throughout the preceding stages of the confrontation).

The sequence is all kinds of absurd, going even beyond its positioning as cathartic overkill into the sublimely ridiculous when the flamethrower makes an appearance, and it underlines that Tarantino is still the big kid trying to push “cool” buttons, to see whether you’re actually willing to stick with him and his idea of that cool, no matter how much he tries to test your patience en route (and there is a lot of that) or throws curveballs.

I mean, everything with Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a perfectly formed contrast, in grooming and presentment, to the scummy, scuzzy poverty-row Manson family, and she’s presented as something of an innocent, a wholesome naïf, who takes wide-eyed pleasure in watching her own (well, the actual Tate’s) performance in a shitty Matt Helm picture and the audience’s response to her performance. Is there any point to the protracted sequence, aside from underlying the worlds-apart culture clashes (and showing the actual Tate)?

Probably not, excepting that Quentin gets to parade his ongoing foot fetish via Sharon’s dirty tootsies (which have hitherto been disguised by immaculate white ankle boots – Tarantino’s immaculate side of the 60s is straight out of Austin Powers). In themselves juxtaposed with his foot fetish for Manson girl Pussycat (Margaret Qualley of The Leftovers). One might think Tarantino is suggesting Tate’s too perfect to have been despoiled the way she was (hence the happy ending version), but then he’ll throw in a line from Steve McQueen (a really good Damian Lewis cameo) noting how he didn’t stand a chance with her because she only goes for men who look like twelve-year-old boys. Are the criticisms of Robbie’s Tate as a character valid? Well, it rather depends what you think Tate is doing in the movie or representing. I’d say she has strong presence, which you don’t necessarily need to achieve by copious dialogue or dramatic incident. I’m less convinced we needed to pay so much attention to her toes, though.

There’s negligible narrative cohesion, let alone tension during the film’s first three quarters, the sole exception being Cliff’s visit to the Spahn Ranch, an eccentric episode pregnant with potential backwater threat, excepting that you never doubt he’ll be fine up against Manson’s crew. Indeed, the underlined irony is that, when he does get to see ranch owner George Spahn (a splendidly irascible Bruce Dern), the latter’s entirely happy with his lot, and everything Squeaky (Dakota Fanning, superbly obnoxious) says is accurate (and factually accurate). Also notable here is Baz Lurhmann’s forthcoming Elvis, Austin Butler, as Tex (later to show up at Dalton’s house and get savaged by Cliff’s dog).

I was struck by the manner in which Tarantino seems intent on making everything about his Hollywood edifice subtly off-kilter, such that deducing any undiluted perspective on his part is iffy. Which is entirely in keeping with his generally unbeholden approach. For example, the suggestion that the Family trio may not even have been instructed to commit the killings by Charles – compounded by the fact that Manson features in only one scene, as if Tarantino somehow wishes to separate the mythical figure from the acts themselves – and it might have all been down to Tex. And the curious choice to pick Lancer as the TV show to focus on, given the tragedies and subsequent ignominy of its real-life star (played by Timothy Olyphant).

There seems to be underlying sense here that everything is tainted, whatever the surface sheen or supposed certainties, and the seemingly most obvious truths aren’t necessarily so. Tarantino loves to ruffle feathers, most consistently with the n-word, but here with a continual spew of disparagement of hippies – hilariously so, admittedly, in respect of Dalton’s drunken raging, but hey they’re would-be murderers, right, albeit ones inspired by Rick’s own murderous onscreen legend, so deserve it – and admonitions not to cry in front of Mexicans. He revels in an unreconstructed, reactionary world – and in this context, slightly bizarrely, the world of old Hollywood being saved by the prevention of the Manson murders – flagrantly so when it comes to inflicting ultra-violence on women at the hands of antihero who may or may not have offed his wife on purpose, as if to say “I will not bow to the whims of the moment” (and because, let’s face it, he has always expounded a certain beta-wish-I-was-alpha faux machismo).

Obviously, the parade of cameos is a lot of fun – others include Luke Perry, Michael Madsen, Lena Dunham and Scoot McNairy – although I completely didn’t twig Sam Wanamaker was Nicholas Hammond. Every time Zöe Bell appears in a Tarantino offering, however, it only compounds my conviction that great stuntwoman she may be, but she’s an appalling actor. I had great fun with the soundtrack too. Some choices are on the obvious side – Mrs Robinson – but equally, others that are – Out of Time – instantly seem indelible to the movie. And there’s a sense that, driving around Los Angeles with Cliff, as we do for much of the time, we’re being asked to simply dip into whatever’s on the radio at that moment.

There isn’t much in the way of recognisable trademark dialogue here, but instead, there’s a different kind of immersion in a Tarantino world. Truth be told, I think leaping headlong twice into revisionist history (hyperviolent fairy tale) narratives the way he has is one time too many, since it ensures he has well and truly severed the slender thread that had him vouchsafed as relevant. Which won’t stop the faithful from proclaiming his ridiculous doodles are awards worthy. I’m not remotely convinced that any of the acclaim fostered on Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood is deserved, but I nevertheless have to credit Tarantino’s chutzpah in pulling off something so brazenly, inimitably indulgent.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

  1. Great review... A few things: Tex does mention that Charlie said to "Make it Witchy" but that's about the only connection with Manson to the murders. I wonder if, and I'd thought about this a lot... if Sharon Tate and her returning husband Roman Polanski would in fact credit Rick for "Saving Sharon" as opposed to simply fending off his own (Rick's own) would-be killers. The killers did in fact change their minds and their course to kill Rick for teaching them to kill from his old show Bounty Law. Anyhow....... There's so much that could possibly connect Manson with the trio of massacred hippies, including the fact Cliff Booth will easily place them as having lived there, and he can also say that some "Charlie guy" was their leader... But in court, Manson himself would be scot free, and it's strange in this other dimension of time that Manson is able to manipulate more hippies. He's still got a whole slew of them at that ranch. I guess it'll be Clem (the guy Pitt beat up, who in real life helped kill stuntman Shorty Shea who wanted to warn Manson just liked Booth did) who next seeks revenge in the sequel, Twice Upon A Time? Anyhow... I'd love to see Rick Dalton starring in Day of the Dolphin, which is what Roman was doing next. The movie that saved his life and that he'd drop thereafter. RICK DALTON... SHARON TATE in... Day of the Dolphin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been meaning to check out the Day of the Dolphin we ended up getting.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.