Jump to content

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood (spoilers)


DMC

Recommended Posts

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Shows Tarantino Is the Rare Kind of Director Who Shouldn’t Retire
For some filmmakers, the best way to fight aging has been to make movies about it.

https://slate.com/culture/2019/08/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-tarantino-retirement-aging.html

Quote

 

Quentin Tarantino has been talking about quitting the movies for almost as long as he’s been making them. Even as early as a 2004 interview with Entertainment Weekly, Tarantino offered assurances he wouldn’t stick around past his sell-by date. Asked what he saw himself doing at 60, he suggested he will probably have moved on to writing novels by that point, saying, “I won’t be making movies, that’s for sure.” Around 2014, that urge gelled into something like a retirement plan. Tarantino began talking about creating a 10-film filmography and calling it a day. His latest, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, is his ninth of that proposed 10 (assuming, like Tarantino, you treat Kill Bill as a single film and try to forget Four Rooms happened). A bittersweet, complex, conversation-starting look back at the film business at the close of a tumultuous decade, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood also works as a strong argument for why it’s too soon for Tarantino to pack it in. It’s not a film Tarantino would, or could, have made 20 years ago, and that’s part of what makes it so remarkable.


When talking about his plan, Tarantino has repeatedly come back to one word: geriatric. “A lot of the [’70s] movie brats have gotten old and it shows in their work, and I don’t want that.
And I’m not picking on them because you go back 100 years and directors don’t get better as they get older,” he told Entertainment Weekly in that same 2004 interview. “As you get older your interests change, you have older interests. Not everything has to be so visceral or kinetic. If I say Martin Scorsese’s movies are getting kind of geriatric and everything, he can say, F— you, man! I’m doing what I want to do, I’m following my muse, and he’s 100 percent right.” That muse is one, however, Tarantino has expressed no interest in following. Speaking to the Telegraph in 2010, he doubled down while throwing in some new, even more colorful terms, saying “I don’t want to make old geriatric colostomy bag movies. I want to make hard-d–k movies and I want them all to come from the same place as Reservoir Dogs; from the same artist, from the same man.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2019 at 10:41 PM, nah said:

These fucking whores (and I use that term gender-neutrally) tracking down Bruce Lee's daughter to try and wring a few clicks out of her reaction to that scene should probably be the kind of thing I'm numb to by now...but it still pisses me off. Bruce Lee is being satirized because he's remembered as one of the baddest motherfuckers to ever live. But then a Tarantino movie without a manufactured controversy wouldn't be a Tarantino movie, now would it. 

yeah, about that

Brad Pitt didn't like it

Bruce Lee's daughter - who was working on producing Bruce Lee's original idea for a TV show, the Warrior, didn't see it at first, but when she saw people laughing at her dad she hated it and publicly spoke out about it. She also didn't like that Tarantino didn't reach out to her to talk to her about her father's portrayal, even though he did do that with Sharon Tate's family.

And Bruce Lee's protege also got pissed off.

So maybe - just maybe - the people who actually were pretty close to Bruce Lee and the choreographer and the actor all having a problem with it is not, actually, 'fucking whores trying to get a few clicks' and they were legitimately bothered by it. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Bruce Lee's daughter - who was working on producing Bruce Lee's original idea for a TV show, the Warrior, didn't see it at first, but when she saw people laughing at her dad she hated it and publicly spoke out about it. She also didn't like that Tarantino didn't reach out to her to talk to her about her father's portrayal, even though he did do that with Sharon Tate's family.

I agree with your general point that I'd never call anyone who objected to it as "fucking whores."  Well, maybe if I got drunk enough, but anyway, I don't think it's a fair comparison to criticize Tarantino because he reached out to Tate's family and not Lee's.  Lee was in one scene.  I mean, seriously, most people aren't even going to remember that from the movie, this is an internet generated outrage. 

Robbie was in the movie as Tate a lot less than she should have been considering the climax, but her tragic end hovered over the film and was a driving force of the narrative.  It makes sense to reach out to Tate's family to make sure they're not offended with anything.  Lee's?  Not so much.  Did he reach out to Steve McQueen's family?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

I agree with your general point that I'd never call anyone who objected to it as "fucking whores."  Well, maybe if I got drunk enough, but anyway, I don't think it's a fair comparison to criticize Tarantino because he reached out to Tate's family and not Lee's.  Lee was in one scene.  I mean, seriously, most people aren't even going to remember that from the movie, this is an internet generated outrage. 

Bruce Lee's daughter was plenty pissed. So no, I don't think it's internet-generated outrage. That would make sense if, ya know, just random people were upset about it. But that's not the case at all. Brad Pitt was bothered by it enough to cut a whole part of that script out. Shannon Lee was bothered enough after seeing it to report it several places. 

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Robbie was in the movie as Tate a lot less than she should have been considering the climax, but her tragic end hovered over the film and was a driving force of the narrative.  It makes sense to reach out to Tate's family to make sure they're not offended with anything.  Lee's?  Not so much.  Did he reach out to Steve McQueen's family?

Probably? I think it's probably a reasonable idea to reach out and touch base in general if you're doing a story with that person in your story. You don't have to, sure. But it's still something reasonable to do when you're actually talking about depicting the lives of real people. Especially when you supposedly care so deeply about the person in question and you care strongly about their legacy and whatnot - if you actually do care, you'd probably reach out. Are you saying that it's a bad idea to go talk to people in hollywood about their famous dad? 

My suspicion is that Tarantino doesn't give fuck all about Bruce Lee the actual human being,  and cares entirely about Bruce Lee the movie star as he exists in Tarantino's mind. He is happy to give homages to Bruce Lee's films and Bruce Lee kicking ass, but that's basically it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Bruce Lee's daughter was plenty pissed.

"Plenty" pissed?  That's the definition of internet outrage dude.  She expressed disappointment that people were laughing at her dad in the theater in which she watched the movie.  That's not going on a crusade, it's just saying "I didn't like how my dad was portrayed as a douchebag."  Fair enough, and she's certainly right to be pissed about it, but for everybody else - get the fuck over it.

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Brad Pitt was bothered by it enough to cut a whole part of that script out.

I already mentioned this, and like I said, I don't think the change really addresses what people have a problem with.  It's the depiction of Lee that is at issue - and I agree it's inaccurate and rather sophomoric - not the result of their 2 out of 3 competition.

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Probably? I think it's probably a reasonable idea to reach out and touch base in general if you're doing a story with that person in your story.

I think that's ridiculous.  Should Trey Parker reach out to the dozens of public figures he lampoons every single episode he's ever written?  Tate's a special case.  The horrific pictures that are unfortunately public record have been redistributed in a publicized way because of the movie - even among some "reputable" outlets I've seen.  That Tarantino anticipated that and wanted to make sure her remaining family was ok with what he was doing makes perfect sense.  You don't have to do that for every celebrity you depict.  Legally, of course not, but even ethically.  Should Stone have made sure Nixon's family approved of his depiction of Nixon?

38 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My suspicion is that Tarantino doesn't give fuck all about Bruce Lee the actual human being,  and cares entirely about Bruce Lee the movie star as he exists in Tarantino's mind.

My policy is to not think what's in people's minds, especially people I've never even met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Just anecdotally at the screening I went to, really full theater, I don't recall much laughter at the Bruce Lee scene except for the round 2 where Pitt throws him against the car at which point there was lot of laughter.  And I didn't really get that unless it was like you were hoping to laugh at Lee the whole time.  

Well yeah...that was the funny part...

that and Zoe Bell’s reaction to it being her car. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I think that's ridiculous.  Should Trey Parker reach out to the dozens of public figures he lampoons every single episode he's ever written? 

Probably not, because his goal is to lampoon them. 

If Tarantino's goal wasn't to lampoon Bruce Lee, chances are good that he should make sure that the estate is cool with it. If his goal is to lampoon Bruce Lee, well, sure. Go ahead, go nuts. But that kind of makes the criticism entirely accurate, no?

1 minute ago, DMC said:

You don't have to do that for every celebrity you depict.  Legally, of course not, but even ethically.  Should Stone have made sure Nixon's family approved of his depiction of Nixon?

Only if he actually cared about Nixon and his family and wanted to respect the legacy. Which supposedly Tarantino does. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

My policy is to not think what's in people's minds, especially people I've never even met.

suuuuure it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If Tarantino's goal wasn't to lampoon Bruce Lee, chances are good that he should make sure that the estate is cool with it. If his goal is to lampoon Bruce Lee, well, sure. Go ahead, go nuts. But that kind of makes the criticism entirely accurate, no?

Why can't Tarantino simultaneously lampoon Lee and still have reverence for his work?  Seems like a pretty huge false dichotomy to me, cuz I make fun of people/things I love all the time.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

suuuuure it is. 

:P  Well I try at least!  ...Sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

Why can't Tarantino simultaneously lampoon Lee and still have reverence for his work?  Seems like a pretty huge false dichotomy to me, cuz I make fun of people/things I love all the time. 

When you're not making fun of the person for what they did or who they are, but are instead creating an entirely different person? I think that's kind of a difference. The problem is that Tarantino isn't making fun of Bruce Lee. He's making fun of a strawman he called Bruce Lee. 

And I have no doubt that Tarantino has reverence for Lee's work. I said as much. What I doubt is that he has any kind of reverence or even basic knowledge of the person. He loves Bruce Lee movies. He loves that genre in general, but especially Bruce Lee movies. Does he know fuck all about Bruce Lee? Did he know that Bruce Lee loved Muhammad Ali and thought he was awesome? Probably didn't even give one single thought to it. To him, Lee was massively egotistical and would have thought himself to be the absolute best at everything, because he's fucking Bruce Lee. That's the Tarantino version of him in his mind - cocky, self-assured, arrogant and bragging. 

But that's not who he actually is, and that kind of sucks how he got played in a movie. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

When you're not making fun of the person for what they did or who they are, but are instead creating an entirely different person? I think that's kind of a difference. The problem is that Tarantino isn't making fun of Bruce Lee. He's making fun of a strawman he called Bruce Lee. 

Um, what?  I refer you back to the Trey Parker example.  Parker's depictions are blatant caricatures.  So as Tarantino did with Lee - and he arguably did the same thing with McQueen.  I'm sorry but you're not gonna convince me this complaint isn't just whining unless you're related to Lee.  "The problem" is that he's making Bruce Lee a "strawman?"  In one fucking throwaway scene in a flick full of throwaway scenes?  Gimme a break.  And as for gimme a break - stating Tarantino doesn't really know about Lee the person?  LOL.  Guarantee if you started up a conversation about Lee with him you wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about within 30 seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

So I finally got to see this and I loved it, which was no surprise to me.

Pitt and DiCaprio slayed all through. The Bruce Lee scene was pretty damn comical, not only the sparring but also Russel and his wife's reaction to her car lmmfao.

The little girl is going to be in future films. I thought there was going to be a reveal that this was a young Jodi Foster or some twist for a moment, she's a natural.

Loved the guy from Billions as Steve McQueen, M.R. nails the role of Tate and Pussycat was a great character.

This is a movie that you would have to work to become offended by imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the trailers I wasn’t expecting much from this movie. I’m not too familiar with the Manson/Sharon Tate murders, so that aspect of the movie did not interest me very much. 

However, this film really surprised me by mostly being about westerns. If you grew up watching old westerns from the 50s and 60s or, like me, had a father who did so (and continues to watch them on basic cable), then there’s going to be a lot here for you. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood... is a love letter to the era of these types of TV shows/films and the people who made them. 

Brad Pitt is his usual affable self, and basically plays Aldo the Apache if he would’ve been a stunt man. DiCaprio, however, delivers another Oscar worthy performance. The way he’s able to turn on a dime with emotions in a single scene is pretty astounding.

On 9/3/2019 at 12:37 AM, DireWolfSpirit said:

So I finally got to see this and I loved it, which was no surprise to me.

Pitt and DiCaprio slayed all through. The Bruce Lee scene was pretty damn comical, not only the sparring but also Russel and his wife's reaction to her car lmmfao.

The little girl is going to be in future films. I thought there was going to be a reveal that this was a young Jodi Foster or some twist for a moment, she's a natural.

Loved the guy from Billions as Steve McQueen, M.R. nails the role of Tate and Pussycat was a great character.

This is a movie that you would have to work to become offended by imo.

Agreed on all accounts. Unfortunately, being offended is easy work for a lot of people these days--and business is a boomin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PetyrPunkinhead said:

Agreed on all accounts. Unfortunately, being offended is easy work for a lot of people these days--and business is a boomin'.

Yes how dare the daughter of a guy being portrayed in a movie is bothered by the way they portrayed her father

She had to go way out of her way to...uh (reads notes) be offended by someone disparaging how her dead father actually was in real life and make him a butt of a joke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yes how dare the daughter of a guy being portrayed in a movie is bothered by the way they portrayed her father

She had to go way out of her way to...uh (reads notes) be offended by someone disparaging how her dead father actually was in real life and make him a butt of a joke

I'm pretty sure literally no one in this thread has specifically criticized Lee's daughter nor raised objections to her being offended.  Fairly obvious everyone is talking about, ya know, the internet using her to whine about it.  And indeed, you continue to use her as a crutch rather than explain why you have a problem with it.  Did you consult with Ms. Lee before using her comments as pretty much the only reasoning for continuing to complain about a two-minute scene (that btw is a flashback and could be interpreted in myriad ways)?  No?  I'm offended!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

I'm pretty sure literally no one in this thread has specifically criticized Lee's daughter nor raised objections to her being offended. 

They kind of totally did. In particular they said that they sought her out to get outrage, and dismissed entirely that she might be, ya know, actually pissed off. 

2 hours ago, DMC said:

And indeed, you continue to use her as a crutch rather than explain why you have a problem with it. 

I have a problem with it when people of color are marginalized in order to make white people look better. Especially when they're doing it by making a fictional character prevail over an actual real human being. This was literally Bruce Lee's actual life as well - constantly being marginalized and belittled by white producers and directors and given second fiddle or simply not given the roles that they fought to play. Lee's portrayal in the movie is a microcosm of what Lee had to fight for in life, except in the movie they're explicitly justifying the behavior they're doing. 

Once again, you can enjoy something AND notice where it's problematic. The two things are not in diametrical opposition. 

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Did you consult with Ms. Lee before using her comments as pretty much the only reasoning for continuing to complain about a two-minute scene (that btw is a flashback and could be interpreted in myriad ways)?  No?  I'm offended!

What way do you think Tarantino intended it to be interpreted? Is there any particular in-movie indication that Pitt's character is wholly unreliable as a narrator or that he's meant to be seen as anything other than a hero - especially given the ending? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

they said that they sought her out to get outrage, and dismissed entirely that she might be, ya know, actually pissed off. 

Who did?  I'm lazy and not gonna re-read this entire thread, so you'll have to cite for that one.  Even if, yes, obviously I agree that's wrong.

ETA:  Ok, yeah, forgot there was the "nah" guy.  But that was it.  No one recently has mentioned her at all.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I have a problem with it when people of color are marginalized in order to make white people look better. Especially when they're doing it by making a fictional character prevail over an actual real human being. This was literally Bruce Lee's actual life as well - constantly being marginalized and belittled by white producers and directors and given second fiddle or simply not given the roles that they fought to play. Lee's portrayal in the movie is a microcosm of what Lee had to fight for in life, except in the movie they're explicitly justifying the behavior they're doing. 

I agree in general about the marginalization factor, but it was one scene.  If you're uncomfortable with it, fine, but I don't see a reason to go on the internet and incessantly complain about it.  As for the bolded, I think the caricature was entirely intentional - as in that's what Tarantino was going for.  Further, I think admonishing a guy that has featured both women and people of color (or both) very frequently in his CV is entirely unfair.  It's almost like - although certainly not the same - people complaining about Joss Whedon's depiction of women because he cheated on his wife.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Is there any particular in-movie indication that Pitt's character is wholly unreliable as a narrator or that he's meant to be seen as anything other than a hero - especially given the ending? 

Yes.  There's the plain suggestion that he may have killed his wife.  And in the flashback-within-a-flashback, the viewer gets no confirmation on the subject.  In fact that bit scene clearly seems to be Pitt's memory of his wife bitching at him on a boat.  What happened next?  Who knows.  Even without that, all of the Pitt flashback scenes could be interpreted as him viewing his past the way he wanted it to be played out, rather than how it "actually" was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

I agree in general about the marginalization factor, but it was one scene.  If you're uncomfortable with it, fine, but I don't see a reason to go on the internet and incessantly complain about it. 

I was responding to the people who said that you had to go out of your way to find something to be offended about. You really don't, and that statement shows a whole lot of privilege. I personally don't see a need to go on the internet and say 'I don't see how anyone could complain about it' either. 

 

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

As for the bolded, I think the caricature was entirely intentional - as in that's what Tarantino was going for.  Further, I think admonishing a guy that has featured both women and people of color (or both) very frequently in his CV is entirely unfair. 

I think you can also admonish Tarantino's portrayal of Lee and give credit to him for doing well in other places (though that is REALLY debatable). The notion that because I'm criticizing him in one place means he is entirely hideous is obvious strawman bullshit. You don't get a pass on shitty behavior because you did well other times. It might not make you a racist or a bigot or whatever, but it doesn't excuse the shitty behavior. 

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's almost like - although certainly not the same - people complaining about Joss Whedon's depiction of women because he cheated on his wife. 

I think you can easily criticize Joss's portrayal of women without talking about his wife even once. I also frankly don't understand that comparison at all. If someone had said how Tarantino is horrible and this is just an example of it, sure. But that's not the case here. 

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes.  There's the plain suggestion that he may have killed his wife.  And in the flashback-within-a-flashback, the viewer gets no confirmation on the subject.  In fact that bit scene clearly seems to be Pitt's memory of his wife bitching at him on a boat.  What happened next?  Who knows.  Even without that, all of the Pitt flashback scenes could be interpreted as him viewing his past the way he wanted it to be played out, rather than how it "actually" was.

But that wasn't the question. Is there anything in the movie that makes you think that Pitt isn't the actual hero - even with the suggestion that he killed his wife? Especially given the conclusion and how he dispatches the obviously Evil, Bad, Naughty minions of Manson - I don't think there's anything that implies he's supposed to be considered particularly anything other than someone to root for. He might be morally grey, but he's definitely the hero here, and he's getting the hero cut. 

I also don't think that Tarantino makes any observation that his memory is unreliable - again, especially given the grisly conclusion. If anything, that shows he's basically as bad-ass as he makes himself out to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

You really don't, and that statement shows a whole lot of privilege.

:rolleyes:  This is why Democrats can't get a majority in the Senate.

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The notion that because I'm criticizing him in one place means he is entirely hideous is obvious strawman bullshit.

Fuck no it's not a strawman, it's simply providing context.  I'm saying if you have a problem with it, fine, but stop whining about it.  And you keep on whining about with little to no provocation.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If someone had said how Tarantino is horrible and this is just an example of it, sure. But that's not the case here. 

Fair enough - you have not said that.  That was more of a response to the internet reaction.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Is there anything in the movie that makes you think that Pitt isn't the actual hero - even with the suggestion that he killed his wife?

I think the suggestion that he killed his wife is meant for you to question him as the hero, yes.  In fact I think that's a very important aspect of the narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like maybe Once Upon A Time in Hollywood will be turned into a Netflix miniseries with additional footage not seen in the theatrical version. Apparently, Tarantino did the same thing with Netflix's version of The Hateful 8 which I had no idea he had done. I thought Hateful 8 was too long (and fell asleep in the middle of it due to having watched it very late at night and after several drinks) but I'm a little intrigued about what new content was included and if 4 50 minute shows might not be a more entertaining experience from the singular cinematic version.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/09/tarantino-plans-extended-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-netflix-miniseries-1202162622/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...