MovieChat Forums > Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019) Discussion > What I Most Like About the Film - No Spo...

What I Most Like About the Film - No Spoilers (I don't think so anyway)


There's a lot, actually, that I like. I think the film is great, and deeply layered, and it really needs to be seen in its entirety before one can begin to pull together all the threads that make up the story, and it's that quality that I love. It's the first Tarantino film that one can describe as understated. The film moves at a languid pace, and, in what I believe is a first for Tarantino, there is no violence outside of some quick "movies within a movie" scenes, such as a western being shot or a clip from a war movie. We get to enjoy the characters, and slowly connect the dots that tell us who they are, before that final scene, which, also a first for Tarantino, is *necessarily* violent in order to complete the character study. Lastly, perhaps not a first, though Jackie Brown's ending was bittersweet at best, this is the first Tarantino film with a genuinely happy ending.

reply

Pulp Fiction had a happy ending. Pumpkin and Honey Bunny got their loot, no bystander was killed, and Jules and Vincent survived the diner encounter and even had a good breakfast.

reply

but we know that ending is soured by the impending brutal death of one of those characters.

reply

And we never really learn Jules' fate other than retirement.

reply

The final scene of the film gave the two robbers a happy ending of sorts, though it likely left them damaged. But if you consider how the characters ended up in the linear ending of the film-- Vincent is dead, Marsellus was raped... not really happy for everyone. Only Jackie Brown may lay a claim to a happy ending, but only if you think Ordell, Melanie, and Louis weren't worthy of being happy, not to mention Max and Jackie don't end up together, which is bittersweet at best.

reply

good post, & i very much agree with what you've said.
i've enjoyed almost every tarantino film, & i've loved several of them, but this is the first time he's made a film that i think genuinely moved me.

i believe there's another thread floating about here comparing the alt-history ending of inglourious basterds. i think the poster suggested that qt was a bit lazy in recycling this technique.

but i think it's very different this time. while basterds might have given us a violent revenge satisfaction in its ending, this one plays very differently to me, in that we get to see an innocent person actually live to have the life she was deprived. maybe middle-age is making me soft, but that really touched me.

reply

I would say that Django Unchained also had a happy ending, though one good man had to die before it came.

reply

That's what I mean. In his previous films, even though SOME characters had happy endings, others who maybe deserved one didn't get one. This was the first time he wrapped it all up in a neat, "good guys win" package. Makes sense, really... Once upon a time is how all fairy tales begin, and fairy tales always have a happy ending.

reply

I think someone making a comparison between the endings of Hollywood and Basterds is missing the big picture. Sure, both offer an alternate version of the history we know, but they do so for very different reasons.

Inglourious Basterds has an over-the-top finale that drips with hatred and revenge. The finale of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has nothing to do with hate or revenge, it's about second chances and salvation. We aren't watching the Manson version of Hitler, Goerring, and the rest of the Nazi high command being mowed down with a machine gun, burned alive, then blown up. We don't even see Manson, only a few random acolytes. Moreover, in Basterds, the damage was done-- the Holocaust happened, the war happened, all we got was an earlier, and more brutal, ending for the villains. In Hollywood, the real-life victims are saved.

Also, compare how film played a part in both. In Basterds, it's a film that brings the villains together to be killed, and not any film, but a propaganda film meant to help their cause. So in a sense, it's film that kills them. An added layer is that Shoshanna uses film to ignite the fire. In Hollywood, film and the film industry is also involved, but as a savior, not a killer.

reply

I loved it but struggled with the re-imagining of the manson killings and the brutal (unexpected) violent interlude - it was a jolt and unrelated to the style of storytelling up to that point.

I had to see it twice to see the context. The first two acts are a case study in fading stardom (I am not sure it's meant to be about the evolution of Hollywood) and then the third act changes the nature of the story rather like Adaptation (third person to first).

The message: There's always film making and there's always hollywood and there's always hope (for the fading hero to be resurrected), and unlike real life Manson in the movies we can write the story how we want with a righteous ending if we so choose.

Very clever, very layered - his most demanding yet. diCaprio was totally don't take your eyes off me brilliant (contrast HUllabaloo with the hawking snorter on the film set and the meeting with Shwartz) and brad was playing dumb ol brad (are you real?). Everyone else just candy - would love to see Damien Lewis expand his Steve McQueen role. This was Tarantino's Hail Caesar, Get Shorty, 81/2, The Player, Mulholland Drive; his tribute to his craft. I wanna see it again.

reply

Remember it's Shwarz. lol

reply

Shwarzzzz. :)

reply

Ooohhh! You are so right - Google corrected me.

reply

I think your right on with your take on the film. Like you, my second viewing really brought it into perspective and I’m looking forward to seeing it again this weekend.

reply

The ending took me by surprise as well..! Never expected that from QT.

reply

:-)

reply