Follow TV Tropes
Quentin Tarantino's next movie. As much of a movie buff he is, he never struck as someone who would do a movie about Hollywood.
Well it’s about a murder IIRC which is right up his alley.
Also the Bruce Lee impersonation is uncanny.
Looks interesting, though part of me wonders if he's doing a movie about Hollywood so he can finally get that best director or best picture Oscar.
Anyone think this film will full Inglourious Basterds and change the Manson murders entirely? I predict Sharon Tate will take down Charles.
Man you get so much fucking chills when Tate & Manson enters the shot.
Its like a massive "Oh fuck" feeling.
I predict it will be like Jackie Brown and be a more conventionally told story.
This is also what I understand from people who watched it at Cannes.
Well, hell, I liked it, whatever anyone else says about it. It has a definite Jackie Brown sort of character-study thing going on, where we're allowed to look into the characters and get a glimpse of how they tick.
But if you asked me what it's about, the best way I can sum it up without going into spoiler territory is that it's about the stories we tell ourselves and each other, how the purpose of those stories is to keep us going and to help make sense of a world that doesn't make much sense on its own. I can dive deeper than that, but it necessitates spoiler time, so here goes:
Joan Didion famously said that her friends almost all believed "The Sixties", so to speak, died just after midnight on August 9, 1969; in that respect, looking back, Charles Manson really did change things for the worse. There was a horrible amount of human potential lost in the wake of the Tate/LaBianca killings, though Sharon Tate and the rest were the foremost and most tragic victims. The Sixties weren't a flawless golden age, but by God they were something; after the Tate murders brought the curtain down Hollywood was never the same, California was never the same, America was never the same. Tarantino's position is this: The benefit of fiction is that we don't have to accept the unhappy and arbitrary endings that reality sticks us with — we have the freedom to imagine what might have happened had things been different. If, for example, one of history's greatest monsters had gotten the ignoble death he deserved. Or in this case, if Charlie Manson's nasty little toadies had picked the wrong address and been ruthlessly dispatched, instead of butchering a house full of innocents with bright futures ahead of them. At the very end, we see Rick Dalton being excitedly greeted on the front walk of 10050 Cielo Drive by Sharon herself — a representative of Hollywood's "square" old school meeting a representative of the "hip" new school, and establishing an instant friendship. For some reason, the Catharsis Factor was strongest for me in that moment, instead of in the scene where the Family members get torn to shreds. It symbolizes, I think, the happy ending to the Sixties that we in the real world can only wistfully dream of, the rapprochement between the Hips and the Squares that America never really got, the fulfillment of all that lost potential that history denied us. But we have the right to that dream.
Edited by JakesBrain on Jul 27th 2019 at 11:04:20 AM
*Sniff* That was...beautiful.
Interesting interpretation. You see, when I took my parents to see the film, my dad told me the ending was suppose to be a forgone conclusion as for all we know, the car that drove off could have brought more of the Manson family to finish the job. It probably was from how the music was almost ominous when Jay invited Dalton for a drink when opening the gate. Again, it's a different interpretation that I'm sure others have also thought of.
It was clear on me that she was bailing on the whole thing, after all that was Linda Kasabian who turned state's witness on the rest of the Manson family.
Edited by BigMadDraco on Jul 30th 2019 at 12:39:01 PM
Beautiful summation and I agree completely about the ending.
There was a bittersweet undercurrent to the scene but I attributed that to a changing of the guard and end of an era in some ways as symbolized by Rick and Cliff’s friendship and working relationship changing, Rick expecting to be far less of a presence in Hollywood, and Cliff’s future being uncertain. One of their last major acts as a duo was protecting the future of Hollywood. I appreciate how the final beatdown in some ways mirrored their professional relationship. Cliff did most of the major and dangerous work while Rick was oblivious, but Cliff got the iconic flashy finish.
Edited by TravelPsych on Jul 31st 2019 at 11:39:15 AM
I thought it was pretty good, it wasn't about anything but I liked it. I wish Leonardo Dicaprio making a Western was a show so I could get more of it.
Unfortunately I went with a friend who knew nothing about the Manson murders so most of the movie was lost on him.
I'm kind of conflicted about Bruce Lee.
Was he always humble? Was he a little bit arrogant? Did he really said that he couldn't beat Cassius Clay (I mean Muhammad Ali)?
And also, I've read comments that some hate Tarantino, saying that he's a racist and a white supremacist, others defending Bruce Lee's portrayal on Once Upon A Time in Hollywood that the movie is fictional (and his fight with Cliff Booth was imaginary) etc...
And also, Shannon Lee responds to Tarantino's defense of Bruce Lee's portrayal in this film.
I am genuinely conflicted... Can someone please tell me what is the truth about Lee? And additionally, is Tarantino really a bad person and a white supremacist, as some on the Internet say?
NOTE: Didn't see this film, but I want the truth of my questions above.
Edited by Andrei_Bondoc on Aug 15th 2019 at 1:47:24 PM
Thanks for clarifying me about Taranatino.
But what about Bruce Lee?
There’s an incident that the scene is likely based on, Bruce’s encounter with Gene Le Bell.
The film turned the arrogance of Lee up to 11 obviously, which takes from a fairly legendary story of Gene Le Bell choking out Steven Segall. Also Lee elected to learn from Gene and applied a lot of the man’s knowledge in his fight scenes.
I don't personally think a white supremacist would make Django Unchained.
Nor would he make Inglourious Basterds. (Btw, does anyone remember why that movie's spelled wrong?)
I'm pretty sure the controversy surrounding Tarantino is more about issues with women than with race.
The main issue is that Bruce Lee himself wasn't portrayed in a uniformly positive light, including his kata screams compared to Cliff's calm demeanor intended to be a comical moment. Given how revered he is as an actor, martial artist and person, playing him as a real life character for humor will rub people the wrong way. Claims of falsehoods regarding if he would have challenged Cliff like that, it's pretty well established that he did spar regularly on his film sets and he did have a high opinion of himself (given his Memetic Badass reputation his legitimate talent has been exaggerated). His dialogue is pretty close to his actual rhetoric on martial arts and combat scenarios.
That said, Lee has a number of other scenes showing him as an instructor and choreographer for other movies. Those moments do carry a worshipful tone to his influence in Hollywood.
@Targetmaster Joe: The film's title is mispelled because there already is a movie with that title (that Tarantino is homaging), so to avoid copyright issues, they swapped a letter.
As for Tarantino, his controversies lie less in white supremacy and more in how closely associated he was with Harvey Weinstein, how he nearly killed on a reckless stunt and how he choked Diane Krueguer into unconsciousness for a good take and laughed about it on live tv.
He's also...pretty strange...around black people.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?