Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
- Monterey Jack
- Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
I read recently about someone who stood on a bench in a theater lobby and bellowed out a major spoiler involving a certain character's family tree in Rise Of Skywalker to the line of people waiting to get into the next showing, and police had to be called because he nearly instigated a riot when angry people started to physically assault him.
People who intentionally go out of their way to maliciously spoil someone else's virgin experience with a new piece of media (especially the latest installment of a long-running and wildly popular film, television or book franchise) have a special slot reserved for them in hell.
People who intentionally go out of their way to maliciously spoil someone else's virgin experience with a new piece of media (especially the latest installment of a long-running and wildly popular film, television or book franchise) have a special slot reserved for them in hell.
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
I agree with the review, but I doubt anyone who hasnt seen it yet could guess whatever is going on with that screencap.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Luckily any iteration of an omniscient God could give a fuck less about the plot of the ninth Star Wars filmMonterey Jack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 2:16 pmI read recently about someone who stood on a bench in a theater lobby and bellowed out a major spoiler involving a certain character's family tree in Rise Of Skywalker to the line of people waiting to get into the next showing, and police had to be called because he nearly instigated a riot when angry people started to physically assault him.
People who intentionally go out of their way to maliciously spoil someone else's virgin experience with a new piece of media (especially the latest installment of a long-running and wildly popular film, television or book franchise) have a special slot reserved for them in hell.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Yeah but especially considering its involvement of a previously used prop for those who haven’t seen the film reading this blu ray review before purchase could be triggered and waiting for it to come back once they pop in the film for the first time and notice
SpoilerShow
there’s no swimming pool in the early Nazi movie scene.
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Oh it isnt very smart, I agree. But I feel that often, what people ruled as spoilers actually can only be guessed with knowledge acquirable through watching the movie.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
I caught up with this and enjoyed it more than most Tarantino films, but I thought this ending was a facile gimmick the first time he did it, and I don’t see anything in this film that changes that (despite some spirited and very creative rationalization in this thread that I’ve enjoyed reading.) You could see it coming as soon as the film departed from the historical record with regard to its ‘real’ characters, and Tarantino didn’t do anything in this film to give it a fresh spin.
SpoilerShow
I don’t see these real-world meta-revenge endings as any different in kind from standard cinematic treatments of violence. The crassest trick in the exploitation (and mainstream) cinema playbook is creating characters we hate, and then killing them in grisly ways. It’s the cheapest form of catharsis, and it’s so pervasive because audiences lap it up. The more hateful the character and the grislier their demise, the better.
All Tarantino is doing is loading the dice by making the targeted characters ones we hate before we even see the film, and making their deaths grislier (or more over-the-top, if that’s a meaningful distinction for you) than usual. I actually see this as making the catharsis even cheaper, rather than richer, and it allows Tarantino to make the revenge in the film proportional to the real-life horror that doesn’t happen within his narrative (which is perhaps the most meta- thing about the scene), rather than what the characters have done in-film. If you’re on Tarantino’s wavelength, no problem, but it’s also acceptable to consider that he’s not an honest dealer in that respect, having his cake while also torching it. (It’s also, by the bye, not even an original Tarantino idea, as almost all movie Nazis since the 40s have been treated along the same lines, whether or not they’re identified as historical figures.)
I think Mr. Sausage was most on the mark when he described what Tarantino was doing as a celebration of cinematic violence over real-world violence. I can certainly see that, but I still don’t think it amounts to much of any interest, as all the ending of this film does is assert that cinematic violence is worthwhile. It doesn’t make any argument to that effect, beyond, I guess, the specious “if it feels good, it must be good” that comes with the territory of exploitation cinema. Nothing is proven except that audiences are easily manipulated. It’s of no more value than the kneejerk argument (without evidence) that cinematic violence is bad because it inspires real-world violence.
If there is a “message” in that scene, isn’t it just a fancy-dress version of “if our teachers and students were armed, the school shooting problem would be solved”? I find it really hard to get behind the prevalent American belief that violence is a solution rather than a problem.
I find this ending / these endings pandering, especially as Tarantino clearly has no interest in going beyond the simple Pavlovian responses Hollywood has always inculcated (baddie gets killed = positive outcome) by complicating the audience’s sympathies. Imagine how differently that climactic scene would have played if either Susan Atkins or Patricia Krenwinkel had been Margaret Qualley’s character (i.e. the only Manson family member that had been afforded any human dimension). Is that a change that would compromise the “cathartic” effect of Tarantino’s ending for you?
All Tarantino is doing is loading the dice by making the targeted characters ones we hate before we even see the film, and making their deaths grislier (or more over-the-top, if that’s a meaningful distinction for you) than usual. I actually see this as making the catharsis even cheaper, rather than richer, and it allows Tarantino to make the revenge in the film proportional to the real-life horror that doesn’t happen within his narrative (which is perhaps the most meta- thing about the scene), rather than what the characters have done in-film. If you’re on Tarantino’s wavelength, no problem, but it’s also acceptable to consider that he’s not an honest dealer in that respect, having his cake while also torching it. (It’s also, by the bye, not even an original Tarantino idea, as almost all movie Nazis since the 40s have been treated along the same lines, whether or not they’re identified as historical figures.)
I think Mr. Sausage was most on the mark when he described what Tarantino was doing as a celebration of cinematic violence over real-world violence. I can certainly see that, but I still don’t think it amounts to much of any interest, as all the ending of this film does is assert that cinematic violence is worthwhile. It doesn’t make any argument to that effect, beyond, I guess, the specious “if it feels good, it must be good” that comes with the territory of exploitation cinema. Nothing is proven except that audiences are easily manipulated. It’s of no more value than the kneejerk argument (without evidence) that cinematic violence is bad because it inspires real-world violence.
If there is a “message” in that scene, isn’t it just a fancy-dress version of “if our teachers and students were armed, the school shooting problem would be solved”? I find it really hard to get behind the prevalent American belief that violence is a solution rather than a problem.
I find this ending / these endings pandering, especially as Tarantino clearly has no interest in going beyond the simple Pavlovian responses Hollywood has always inculcated (baddie gets killed = positive outcome) by complicating the audience’s sympathies. Imagine how differently that climactic scene would have played if either Susan Atkins or Patricia Krenwinkel had been Margaret Qualley’s character (i.e. the only Manson family member that had been afforded any human dimension). Is that a change that would compromise the “cathartic” effect of Tarantino’s ending for you?
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
SpoilerShow
I think the key difference here is that Inglourious Basterds was all about getting futile revenge whereas this is about hypothetically sparing a life. Going into this film knowing that the Tate family had approved of it, and trying to put the pieces together upon first viewing, I think it was during the Spahn Ranch scene that I first realized that Tarantino was somehow going to let Sharon Tate live. This was such a sweet sentiment, with a benevolence I didn't know he had in him, and of course he was going to use some of his old tricks to get there, but to me the big payoff at the end is the very last scene, not the mayhem that enabled it.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Not that this will change your feelings and I might just be a weirdo, but I didn't take the ending as cathartic, but rather pathetic in its intent.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
That may be for you, but it was clearly aiming at catharsis and the vast majority of positive responses indicate it succeeded
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Oh, I really like that very last scene too (but I don't see it as entirely dependent on what came before happening precisely in the way it did).swo17 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:01 pmSpoilerShowI think the key difference here is that Inglourious Basterds was all about getting futile revenge whereas this is about hypothetically sparing a life. Going into this film knowing that the Tate family had approved of it, and trying to put the pieces together upon first viewing, I think it was during the Spahn Ranch scene that I first realized that Tarantino was somehow going to let Sharon Tate live. This was such a sweet sentiment, with a benevolence I didn't know he had in him, and of course he was going to use some of his old tricks to get there, but to me the big payoff at the end is the very last scene, not the mayhem that enabled it.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Let me rephrase. There's really a two hander here. The meta Tate stuff and the fictional Rock stuff with a common denominator of Manson. Tate is plainly, and I think successfully for the reasons Swo describes, cathartic throughout the whole of the story. Rick's story is plainly with the concept of pathetic particularly as far as the load carrier is concerned. Manson is likewise pathetic which his group's one successful moment being the Bruce Dern scene and that is in order to establish further the sense of pathetic.
For me the ending with the sublimination of the cathartic and pathetic is more compelling for its pathetic element. That's what my original post was joking about. Where I most heavily disagree with Zedz on, if I understand him correctly, is the idea that catharsis is reached at the ending rather than being the film's natural state.
For me the ending with the sublimination of the cathartic and pathetic is more compelling for its pathetic element. That's what my original post was joking about. Where I most heavily disagree with Zedz on, if I understand him correctly, is the idea that catharsis is reached at the ending rather than being the film's natural state.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
I agree it didn't have to happen that way, other than Tarantino being Tarantino. I enjoyed that scene for what it was, but if it weren't contributing to something bigger I would have been a lot harder on it for repeating the gimmickzedz wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:15 pmOh, I really like that very last scene too (but I don't see it as entirely dependent on what came before happening precisely in the way it did).swo17 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:01 pmSpoilerShowI think the key difference here is that Inglourious Basterds was all about getting futile revenge whereas this is about hypothetically sparing a life. Going into this film knowing that the Tate family had approved of it, and trying to put the pieces together upon first viewing, I think it was during the Spahn Ranch scene that I first realized that Tarantino was somehow going to let Sharon Tate live. This was such a sweet sentiment, with a benevolence I didn't know he had in him, and of course he was going to use some of his old tricks to get there, but to me the big payoff at the end is the very last scene, not the mayhem that enabled it.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
swo17 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:01 pmSpoilerShowI think the key difference here is that Inglourious Basterds was all about getting futile revenge whereas this is about hypothetically sparing a life. Going into this film knowing that the Tate family had approved of it, and trying to put the pieces together upon first viewing, I think it was during the Spahn Ranch scene that I first realized that Tarantino was somehow going to let Sharon Tate live. This was such a sweet sentiment, with a benevolence I didn't know he had in him, and of course he was going to use some of his old tricks to get there, but to me the big payoff at the end is the very last scene, not the mayhem that enabled it.
SpoilerShow
I also stand by my original reading that aside from (or I suppose in addition to) the use of movies as magic to provide a catharsis for immortalizing Tate's legacy, Rick Dalton gets to be existentially validated finally. Obviously in the real world, people like him were not - and if one can see his character as broadly to synonymous with the viewer, who is going to the movies for some degree of psychological validation through empathy with another character who elicits relatable feelings, then it's even more applicable to the idea that movies are the place where these daydreams can happen. I agree that Rick Dalton has a pathetic air to him, which I think is due to the lack of acceptance which stunts any chance at serenity or gratitude for what he does have, but the overall vibe from that validation from Seberg reminded me that part of the reason I go to the movies is to feel connected and validated even in the smallest of ways (I think I used a weird example of Casey Affleck in Lonergan's film, where even just watching him suffering feels connecting to that pain of loss and makes me feel good because deep down when I've been alone, sad, or experienced loss I've wanted to be 'seen' and comforted too). So I see this as Tarantino's thesis film in part because I think he's offering an explanation for his movies not only being the id-impulse driving machines of cathartic violence, but emotional catharsis as well, as swo says we get with Tate but I think that we get with Dalton too, and Cliff Booth's more accepting experience of aging as he watches time changing before him through observantly eyeing the Manson girls walk by.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
zedz wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:15 pmOh, I really like that very last scene too (but I don't see it as entirely dependent on what came before happening precisely in the way it did).swo17 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:01 pmSpoilerShowI think the key difference here is that Inglourious Basterds was all about getting futile revenge whereas this is about hypothetically sparing a life. Going into this film knowing that the Tate family had approved of it, and trying to put the pieces together upon first viewing, I think it was during the Spahn Ranch scene that I first realized that Tarantino was somehow going to let Sharon Tate live. This was such a sweet sentiment, with a benevolence I didn't know he had in him, and of course he was going to use some of his old tricks to get there, but to me the big payoff at the end is the very last scene, not the mayhem that enabled it.
SpoilerShow
I've thought about this a bit since seeing the film the first or second time and wondering about a different way to approach things: What would your reaction be if the film were recut with Rick Dalton walking out with the blender and shooing away the Manson crew, them just driving off, and then he and Cliff ending up hanging out with Sharon and Jay and the gang? I wouldn't have preferred this myself, but putting myself in the shoes of someone who would like not to have seen a violent crescendo, that seems like it would have been better for that camp while a little anticlimactic for most.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
I think that would have been an incredibly ballsy move on Tarantino's part, and not entirely unlikely,mfunk9786 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:23 pmzedz wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:15 pmOh, I really like that very last scene too (but I don't see it as entirely dependent on what came before happening precisely in the way it did).swo17 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 4:01 pmSpoilerShowI think the key difference here is that Inglourious Basterds was all about getting futile revenge whereas this is about hypothetically sparing a life. Going into this film knowing that the Tate family had approved of it, and trying to put the pieces together upon first viewing, I think it was during the Spahn Ranch scene that I first realized that Tarantino was somehow going to let Sharon Tate live. This was such a sweet sentiment, with a benevolence I didn't know he had in him, and of course he was going to use some of his old tricks to get there, but to me the big payoff at the end is the very last scene, not the mayhem that enabled it.SpoilerShowI've thought about this a bit since seeing the film the first or second time and wondering about a different way to approach things: What would your reaction be if the film were recut with Rick Dalton walking out with the blender and shooing away the Manson crew, them just driving off, and then he and Cliff ending up hanging out with Sharon and Jay and the gang? I wouldn't have preferred this myself, but putting myself in the shoes of someone who would prefer not to have seen a violent crescendo, that seems like it would have been preferable for that camp while a little anticlimactic for most.
SpoilerShow
as the Manson family's whole modus operandi was "creepy crawling" - i.e. sneaking into a private home undetected before wreaking havoc. It would have been even more plausible if it had been Cliff who confronted them, as he would have recognized them from the ranch. One of the most striking aspects of the Tate murders was that nobody noticed, not even (supposedly) the guy in the flat out back, and their screams were dismissed as "just your ordinary Saturday night screams," so introducing that dimension - as the film already does with Rick Dalton confronting them - completely changes the dynamic of what the killers were doing.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
I think zedz' what if about Qualley is a better speculative warren oates-style rewrite the movie question here, but even so I'm not sure there was a way to "fix" this and still get the ending Tarantino clearly wanted, so he might as well have done it the way he did
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Yeah, the ending clearly works on Tarantino's terms, but it's just that those terms aren't especially interesting or impressive for me. And the Qualley "re-write" would, I suggest, largely torpedo what he was striving for, so it's no surprise at all that he didn't take that approach. I don't even think mfunk's speculated ending would have been a better fit for the film Tarantino delivered, but it would sure as hell have been unexpected!domino harvey wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:07 pmI think zedz' what if about Qualley is a better speculative warren oates-style rewrite the movie question here, but even so I'm not sure there was a way to "fix" this and still get the ending Tarantino clearly wanted, so he might as well have done it the way he did
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
It's an impasse, then, because
SpoilerShow
The violence is a necessary way of breaking the tension and sorrow of knowing we're careening toward a night that's literally being recalled in narration down to the minute. Yes, already knowing how the film is going to end is another thing entirely, but if one isn't playing a guessing game at what Tarantino's about to do and just has enough familiarity with the situation to know who's coming and why, and who's in grave danger, what Tarantino does do is merely provide a "what if?" rather than a "this is, in a vacuum, an ideal way of that night occurring". In other words, if no one had shown up, that would have been the best outcome - but since they did show up, this is the best outcome, violence and all.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
I think as well the ending we currently have undermines Tarantino violence in a way the rewrite wouldn't.
SpoilerShow
The current ending combines the two pathetic elements in a way that makes neither victim nor the pursuer of violence cool. That's the big contrast from, say, Django's ending where there's a chill that keeps the audience respect. As is with Hollywood you have stupid hippies stupidly killed by a murderer high on acid who all the same gets embarrassingly injured while Rick is in his shorts bbqing someone who is basically dead. The film has achieved its pathetic apex. That's what gives the ending additional meaning as catharsis doesn't come from that moment of violence, but one of kindness. Shooing off the killers would undermine the whole thematic crux of the film and in the context of Tarantino's career keep his other violence uncomplicated and good. Maybe Zedz's ending would work for the Reuben Ostland version.
-
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Would the ending work better for you if say -zedz wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:17 pmYeah, the ending clearly works on Tarantino's terms, but it's just that those terms aren't especially interesting or impressive for me. And the Qualley "re-write" would, I suggest, largely torpedo what he was striving for, so it's no surprise at all that he didn't take that approach. I don't even think mfunk's speculated ending would have been a better fit for the film Tarantino delivered, but it would sure as hell have been unexpected!
SpoilerShow
It still played out exactly like it does - except Pitt's character carries a gun and he simply shoots the 3 hippies dead with a single gunshot each in 10 seconds total and that's that. He's a bit hurt and is carried away and the neighbors hear the gunshots and come check in on DiCaprio and invite him over.
The bad people dead construct would still work but perhaps more muted and tonally similar to the more elegiac tone of the film?
The bad people dead construct would still work but perhaps more muted and tonally similar to the more elegiac tone of the film?
- Never Cursed
- Such is life on board the Redoutable
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Nasir007 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:27 pmSpoilerShowIt still played out exactly like it does - except Pitt's character carries a gun and he simply shoots the 3 hippies dead with a single gunshot each in 10 seconds total and that's that. He's a bit hurt and is carried away and the neighbors hear the gunshots and come check in on DiCaprio and invite him over.
The bad people dead construct would still work but perhaps more muted and tonally similar to the more elegiac tone of the film?
SpoilerShow
All else being equal, that's maybe the worst suggestion yet, for a few reasons:
1. It is wildly disproportionate to what the Manson crew was actually doing in that moment - the brutal slaughter of the home invaders only makes diegetic sense in Tarantino's version because they were actively menacing the occupants of Dalton's house. From Dalton/Booth's perspective, the hippies are an irritant when they're parked outside the Dalton house, but they're certainly not the existential threat they become shortly afterwards. I think it would be ridiculous, especially for someone who employs violence in the provocative but controlled manner as Booth does, to stoically gun down the hippies because they were irritating him.
2. This is maybe the most subjective of my reasons, but I think it destroys the ambiguity of Pitt's character regarding the wife stuff. The whole point of that sub-subplot, at least for me, was that we never actually get an answer, or even behavior that can be interpreted as an answer, regarding what Booth actually did or did not do to his wife. The violence in the finale tells us almost nothing about his capacity for murdering his wife in the way suggested earlier in the film, which I thought was the (troubling) point. But you have Booth blow away the hippies without a real reason and all that ambiguity is gone and we have our answer: he's capable of emotionless impulsive fatal violence against hippies annoying him, so he's presumably capable of the same towards his wife.
3. That solution doesn't kill 3 hippies, but rather 4: it kills Linda Kasabian (Maya Hawke's character, the one who steals the car after Dalton scares them off), who did not participate in the killings and who Tarantino was clearly actively trying to paint as sympathetic, unlike the other three mindless killers in the car. Either you kill her and undermine/ignore the point that Tarantino was making with her character, or she isn't there and you lose one of the few bits of humanity in an otherwise grim sequence.
I'm not seeing anything "muted" or "elegaic" about this solution. It just seems blunt and facile in a way that none of the other solutions (either Tarantino's or the others proposed here) did, and it doesn't make sense to boot.
1. It is wildly disproportionate to what the Manson crew was actually doing in that moment - the brutal slaughter of the home invaders only makes diegetic sense in Tarantino's version because they were actively menacing the occupants of Dalton's house. From Dalton/Booth's perspective, the hippies are an irritant when they're parked outside the Dalton house, but they're certainly not the existential threat they become shortly afterwards. I think it would be ridiculous, especially for someone who employs violence in the provocative but controlled manner as Booth does, to stoically gun down the hippies because they were irritating him.
2. This is maybe the most subjective of my reasons, but I think it destroys the ambiguity of Pitt's character regarding the wife stuff. The whole point of that sub-subplot, at least for me, was that we never actually get an answer, or even behavior that can be interpreted as an answer, regarding what Booth actually did or did not do to his wife. The violence in the finale tells us almost nothing about his capacity for murdering his wife in the way suggested earlier in the film, which I thought was the (troubling) point. But you have Booth blow away the hippies without a real reason and all that ambiguity is gone and we have our answer: he's capable of emotionless impulsive fatal violence against hippies annoying him, so he's presumably capable of the same towards his wife.
3. That solution doesn't kill 3 hippies, but rather 4: it kills Linda Kasabian (Maya Hawke's character, the one who steals the car after Dalton scares them off), who did not participate in the killings and who Tarantino was clearly actively trying to paint as sympathetic, unlike the other three mindless killers in the car. Either you kill her and undermine/ignore the point that Tarantino was making with her character, or she isn't there and you lose one of the few bits of humanity in an otherwise grim sequence.
I'm not seeing anything "muted" or "elegaic" about this solution. It just seems blunt and facile in a way that none of the other solutions (either Tarantino's or the others proposed here) did, and it doesn't make sense to boot.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
Those are great points. Plus, well, it’s like saying the romance in a Woody Allen movie would work for you if only the girl he’s dating was a year older.
- DarkImbecile
- Ask me about my visible cat breasts
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
SpoilerShow
I think Nasir’s asking whether retaining the structure of the resolution — with the cultists in the house, threatening to do the devil’s work — but having Cliff shoot them without the more exaggerated, prolonged melee would change the way people feel about the violence.
- Never Cursed
- Such is life on board the Redoutable
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
SpoilerShow
I thought nasir was building off of zedz's suggestion that Cliff confront the car rather than Rick.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, 2019)
I think it's interesting to consider how other endings might have worked or not, but the existing ending is clearly the one Tarantino has been building towards in this film (and in a number of others). It's just that I think this and those endings are a lot more vacuous than their defenders do. So for me it's a crucially flawed film that I don't think there's a simple "fix" for.