Supposedly the penultimate film from acclaimed director Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is the tale of Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Cliff Booth. One is a down-on-his-luck actor that finds comfort in the bottle. The other is his stunt double with a laid-back demeanor and a checkered past. Both of these men rely on one another as they face the challenges that lay ahead of them in 1960s Hollywood. On their journey, Rick tries to re-ignite his career while Cliff tries to kill his boredom doing errands for him, with both of them coming into contact with Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the Manson family.
Tarantino has been no stranger to controversy. Since the day he got his hands on an 8mm camera, he has been stirring the pot, popping monocles from the critics high up in their ivory towers. It was especially evident earlier on when his works would be derided as low-brow, crass, exploitative. They were right, but you know what else they were? Fantastic. There was a love for cinema that always burst through like the copious amount of blood packets that littered his films. He enjoyed the greats but he also loved the grimy, and he was masterful in making the two of them co-exist together. It's creators like him that are wonderful to follow, as they erode the notions of high and low art in favor of providing us compelling art, art that can be as simple or as complex as you desire.
Of course, not all of the controversy stemming around him is based on haters of postmodernist theory or fun. Others are more focused on how well he focuses on the subjects he touches upon, along with his personality and how eager he is to blurt out the n-word. Perhaps the one criticism that hits the hardest to Tarantino is immature. That for all his defiance of norms and intense effort into constructing his works that they would be seen as sophomoric pastiches. He just can't tackle heavy subjects properly. It's not entirely the case, but one could tell that he was becoming more self-conscious of this when making The Hateful Eight. Though it stumbled in some areas, it was generally seen as a step in the right direction. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood serves to be the next step into a different Quentin Tarantino although it already had some alarms ringing off just by bringing in Charles Manson and Sharon Tate into the picture. Some feared he was going to go too far there. Having already seen I can tell you that you don't need to worry about him being offensive with that material. I can't say the same for how Bruce Lee was portrayed but I was less offended as I was confused.
For the most part though, I could say that the film was quite tasteful, insofar as a Tarantino film can be. There's still some over-the-top violence but the film is quite self-aware of how its using the violence. It's more indulgent on reliving LA through the 1960s, with an aggressive attention to detail. I'm particularly fond of how it's able to recreate the production quality of the era, with its grainy footage, slightly off audio quality and raw nature. However I'm not quite as fond of the radio-esque approach to the soundtrack, especially at certain moments when it creates this auditory blur on a scene. Though if we really want to talk about a distracting indulgence, it has to be the feet. It almost felt embarrassing akin to being caught with your pants off masturbating. I'd be surprised if that wasn't how he was directing half the film.
At its core, much of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood feels like if Tarantino was channeling the Coens through its shaggy dog story, cinematographic panache and focused performances. The entire film is beautifully shot with no still feeling off (apart from any with feet at the forefront). Much of the performances were done well, with Leonardo DiCaprio being of particular note as he is consistently compelling every time he's on screen. Brad Pitt does well as a side-kick, fitting pretty well into his established role of being Brad Pitt, and I was pleasantly surprised to see Al Pacino in even though I probably shouldn't have been if I had looked into it a little more. By far the most fitting performance was having Lena Dunham play a white woman who's friendly demeanor harbors a deep unpleasantness that is almost haunting in its facade. Its only crime with the cast is how poorly utilized Mike Moh (who plays Bruce Lee) and Margot Robbie are.
It's strange how the most controversial character from the two isn't the one that people were expecting. Like I said before, I'm not exactly sure why Bruce Lee was portrayed as a cocky asshole that would be wrongly schooled by Cliff. It didn't really seem to make much sense since it wasn't particularly amusing or necessary. It would have made more sense to put in Chuck Norris despite his glory days being in the 70s rather than the 60s. Having Bruce Lee in the film felt very much like an afterthought, with Sharon Tate not fairing much better. It's a shame that Margot Robbie feels so underutilized in this film, unable to do much with her role as Sharon other that be ditzy and awkwardly trip in the middle of the story. Her presence only serves to give Bruce Lee something else to do for a millisecond and justify Cliff's whole thread of coming across the Manson family. It's necessary for the story but not so much beyond that.
Only one third of the movie feels properly thought out and worthy of being fully invested in and that's Rick's whole arc of improving as an actor. I have my own selfish reasons for why I enjoy those parts, but there is a real sense of purpose and coherence to them that I'm not quite seeing from the rest. Cliff's plot thread provides some compelling and entertaining elements but it's hard not to feel like its just a lot of faffing about. Which I suppose is the point but when you're telling a shaggy dog story but a shaggy dog needs to have more going for it if its going to end up nowhere. The ending manages to tie everything together but I would hardly say that in doing so it fixes how meandering the rest feels. It's quite a controversial ending, possibly exploitative I'd even say, though not in the way that you'd imagine.
Somehow Once Upon A Time In Hollywood shows Tarantino willing to show himself as a more mature director but also unable to indulge properly. It commits the mortal sin of Hollywood-centric films in that it seems more invested in breathing in the Los Angeles air than giving something for the rest of us. It has been said that it is Tarantino's mid-life crisis film, and I can certainly see where that claim is coming from. He certainly seems to lack some confidence in himself, and tries to self-reflect and strive for better. Rick's entire journey reflect this as he fights his self-doubt in his ability, and the film desperately wants to look cool, when deep down it comes off feeling hollow. It's not to say that he's out of his element, Jackie Brown has proven that he can indulge properly and tell a complex story. But that film feels more like a movie about having a mid-life crisis rather that a movie made in a mid-life crisis.
I wouldn't discourage anyone from watching Once Upon A Time In Hollywood if they were initially inclined to do so. I certainly think it's a crime that with such talent it cannot surpass that barely mediocre Lion King remake as I would rather see something original try than a remake just shrug its way into success. When it is able to get out of its stupor of self-pandering and aimlessness it is quite an experience. But I'm glad that this is not the last film on his resume, because this is definitely not the way you want to wrap up a career as acclaimed as his.
