(note: I am challenging myself to write every day for 30 days. What follows may not necessarily be interesting or even coherent. Parental discretion is advised.)
Last night the missus and I decided (well, I did) to watch the tenth film written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
Now, I’ve liked Tarantino but was never a huge fan of his work. True Romance which he wrote but did not direct still remains my #1 movie of all time.
Still, though, with the cast of Hollywood being what they are, I had to check this one out. Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Pacino, Margot Robbie, Timothy Olyphant, Kurt Russell… Big star power here, folks.
So what is this movie supposed to be? As I’m watching, I couldn’t quite understand what the actual hook of the story was supposed to be. For a good hour, it was a lot of dialog, sweeping shots of 1969 Los Angeles and basically a soon-to-be washed up actor (Leonardo DiCaprio) fearing for his reputation along with his stunt double (Brad Pitt) who is oddly nonchalant throughout the various crises that Leo’s character has to deal with. There also are other characters with their own story lines that didn’t seem compelling by themselves.
It took me a good while to figure out that this film wasn’t really about telling a good story but about letting the characters and the setting become a story. It was more of a homage than a story-delivery device. A lot of painstaking care was put into ensuring that 1969 L.A. looked and felt authentic without the use of CGI or fake-looking effects. The setting became a character itself.
I wasn’t sure while watching if I was going to admit this to be the masterpiece that some critics have been lauding it as. It seemed like Hollywood was meandering its way down a path that it didn’t know the destination of. Almost as if it was a person taking their dog out for a walk in an unfamiliar area. It knew where it was, but not where it’ll be.
And I have to admit that once the credits rolled, I saw what was so compelling about this film. It wasn’t the story, but the characters, the feel, the mood and atmosphere which left the deepest impression and offered the most engagement. 1969 came to life on my screen with the soundtrack, the clothing and the pop-culture references scattered throughout.
I laughed out loud when I heard “Snoopy vs the Red Baron” being played (and sung along to) by the actor who played Roman Polanski. What a mad stroke of genius. Used to love that song as a kid.
And then the final “fight” scene was… well, wow. Not going to spoil it here but it subverts expectations in the most dramatic of ways.
Leonardo took a pay cut to be able to do this film, which meant that he received a measly ten million dollars for the role and his performance… well, honestly it was hard to NOT see Leonardo in most of his scenes with the exception of one which involved a precocious eight-year old girl who praised Leo for his “acting” while on the set of filming a spaghetti western.
“This is the best acting I’ve ever seen in my whole life!” so says the girl, after Leo tosses her to the floor in overly-dramatic fashion.
Great scene, but on the whole, Leo was still being Leo. Another great part was the scene where he has a mental breakdown after failing to remember his lines and works to bring himself back into the right headspace. That was impressive as well.
Now Brad Pitt actually made his character interesting to watch in this. Yeah, I could see that it was Brad Pitt up there, but unlike Leo, he blended more fully into what he was doing. One of my favorite scenes was when he picked up a crazy hippy on the street and while giving her a ride, channels his inner-Steve McQueen in deflecting the (presumably underage) advances of this girl.
Then the part where he marches around Spahn Ranch looking for answers as to what happened to the owner was like watching a man walk a narrow tightrope of tension and suave confidence. Although there was a version of Steve McQueen played by another actor in the movie, it felt obvious that Steve was really what Brad Pitt used as inspiration for his performance.
And of course, the controversial depiction of Bruce Lee as being an arrogant jerk was… well, it felt like an unnecessary addition to the film, but what do I know? I suppose we needed an explanation as for why Brad Pitt’s character was blacklisted from working on certain sets, so him getting into a scrap with Bruce Lee is what Tarantino decided to cook up.
Mm. There isn’t much else to say about Hollywood other than to add in my chimes of praise. As a film, it does a wonderful job of subverting expectations. It is not a formulaic piece of movie-making and each scene is covered with little smooches of Tarantino’s obvious love and passion for this particular era of Hollywood and film.
Although not historically accurate, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood feels like Tarantino went back in time with modern-day equipment and methods to capture the sound and feel of the times, and that is quite the impressive achievement.
If you’re into watching a movie that isn’t really a movie and is about movies using actors who portray actors that act — then Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the drug you need. It won’t ever be praised for its story or complexity, but you will be deeply immersed and invested into what’s going on even if you have no idea what that might be.
4.5 out of 5.
