Genre: Drama
Premise: A fading moving star and his trusty stuntman navigate the perils of Hollywood in 1969.
About: Psychologically, it was imperative that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood cross the 40 million dollar mark this weekend. So thank goodness it was BARREELLLLY able to do so, grabbing 40.2 million dollars. The film has been working up a big lather of discussion and I hope to add to that today.
Writer: Quentin Tarantino
Details: 2 hours and 45 minutes
[MAJOR SPOIIIIILLLLLLERRRSSS]
Quentin.
Vs.
Marvel!
Don’t ignore the reality. This is what this really is. This is original auteurs versus the giant moviemaking machines. I remember people complaining when Star Wars and Jaws came out. “Oh no! Now it’s going to be all about the blockbuster!” And, yes, it eventually became about the blockbuster. But that’s nothing compared to today. Today it’s about the superstar IP franchise-starting make-stockholders-happy mega movie. And nobody embodies that better than Marvel.
Which means that whether you like Quentin Tarantino or not, you should support him. Because the fewer of him there are around, the closer we are to an all-Marvel Hollywood. And don’t get me wrong. I like most Marvel movies. I’d just like to have the occasional choice, you know.
Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is set in 1969 and Rick Dalton, the star of a popular Western TV show called “Bounty Law,” has since tried his luck at becoming a movie star. However, it’s not going well. With each passing part, he’s getting cast more and more as the bad guy, which means he’s just there to get killed. This has driven Rick to lots of drinking.
Rick’s best friend is his stunt double, Cliff Booth. Cliff stopped getting work when rumors began swirling that he murdered his wife. Therefore, the only time Cliff gets to be a stunt double is when Rick demands that they hire him. Meanwhile, Cliff drives Rick around and takes care of his house.
Sharon Tate, who was infamously murdered by the Manson family, is an aspiring actress here who just happens to have moved into the house next to Rick’s with her husband, Roman Polanski. Rick often ponders the randomness of the world and how if he could just bump into them, he would go from Rick Dalton, TV extra, to Rick Dalton, starring in a Roman Polanski movie. But alas, that will never happen. Will it?
If there’s a plot to be had here, it would be Rick’s journey to do good work. He’s trying, despite all odds, to become a movie star. So we follow him to movie sets and watch him try, with all his might, to give the best performances possible, in the hopes that somebody important will notice that he can still be the next Steve McQueen.
Wow.
I mean, is there a writer who’s more confusing to new screenwriters than Quentin Tarantino? On the one hand, you can use his scripts to convey some of the most useful tips in screenwriting. On the other, he does tons of things you should never allow a screenwriter to do. And I think this script highlights that better than most.
Take Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) and Cliff Booth (Pitt). What’s one of the first things they teach you in screenwriting class? That the main two characters who are teamed up in your story should have conflict with one another. That doesn’t mean Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker over-the-top conflict. It could mean Miles and Jack conflict from the movie, Sideways, where they don’t see the world the same way and are always banging up against each other about what to do.
Rick and Cliff have zero conflict with one another. They’re like two peas in a pod, the best of pals. And it stays that way THE WHOLE MOVIE. Now, ultimately, the only question that matters is, does it work? If we enjoy watching these characters together, it shouldn’t matter that there’s no conflict. And I enjoyed watching these two. But there’s another question we have to consider, which is, if Tarantino HAD created conflict between them, would we have enjoyed the movie MORE? And I think the answer to that question is yes.
There’s a moment in the script that hints at the idea that Rick isn’t trying hard enough to get Cliff stunt work. That maybe he only sees him as a 24/7 caddy. If that thread would’ve been explored more, and had Cliff grown some resentment towards Rick, I think their relationship might’ve been more interesting to watch. Instead they’re the bromance to end all bromances.
The individual character journeys were also interesting from a screenwriting perspective. The most obvious conflict in the movie comes from Rick Dalton, who’s battling his falling star. And, once again, Tarantino stays away from conventional structuring. In a conventional movie, you would have an upcoming role that if Rick Dalton nailed, the studio was going to sign him to a new 5 picture deal. This gives the story a goal and stakes. Instead, we just sort of travel around with Rick as he goes to set and acts. We’re not all that sure what the stakes are other then, if he does a good job, he’ll feel like he’s still “got it.” When people complain about the rambling nature of this story, this is what they’re talking about. If your main character isn’t trying to accomplish anything, the narrative focus is going to suffer.
Then there’s Cliff. Cliff isn’t trying to accomplish anything. Nor does he have any sort of internal conflict. He appears to be dependent on Rick for work. And yet he doesn’t seem scared about what would happen if Rick stopped getting work. If a character’s journey doesn’t have any stakes attached to it, then that journey will feel pointless. What’s crazy is that Cliff’s character has the tools to be compelling. Everybody believes that he killed his wife. Maybe he even did kill his wife. So if he’s out there trying to gain everyone’s respect back, if he’s trying to become a stunt performer who doesn’t need Rick Dalton to get work, then at least he’s moving towards something. But in the Bruce Lee scene (he fights Bruce Lee, which gets him kicked off the set), he’s completely unconcerned with losing that job. He’s even smirking about it. So if he doesn’t care about losing his job, why would I worry about him? Or what happens to him?
Finally, there’s Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie), whose character is another Tarantino Screenwriting Paradox. If you got rid of all of Sharon Tate’s scenes, nothing about the movie would change. And that’s another Screenwriting 101 lesson. If it’s not necessary for the story, get rid of it. BUT there’s a counter argument to this. Most people who go into this movie know Sharon Tate was brutally murdered in the Manson murders. Therefore, by keeping her in the movie, you’re building up an association between her and the audience, who knows her fate is coming. Therefore, when she lives instead of dies, all of that earlier time spent with her pays off. Cause we actually care that she lived. Had we not seen her at all, we wouldn’t have cared. Now could Tarantino have better connected her storyline to the plot? Probably. Could he have given her more to do than watch a movie in Westwood? I’m guessing yeah. So I do understand why people have a problem with her.
The truth is this script probably needed two more drafts. And I’m going to tell you how I know that. What is everyone’s biggest complaint about the film? It’s that there’s no plot. That we sort of drift around Hollywood without purpose. Now, what are the two sequences in the film everyone is talking about? They are when Cliff Booth goes to the Manson Farm and the ending scene where the Manson followers break into Rick’s house.
So what do those two things tell you? You need a plot and the thing that’s working best in your story is the Manson stuff. With a couple more drafts, Tarantino could’ve shaped this more around the Mansons. And here’s where screenwriting gets hard. I think Tarantino went into this script not wanting to center the story on the Mansons. To him, this was always about an actor and his stunt man. So even if the Manson stuff becomes the best thing in the script? He’s already created a bias by which he won’t center the story around it. All screenwriters do this. I’ve done it a dozen times myself. We write with a certain type of movie in mind, forgetting that the only rule in storytelling is to entertain. So if another, more exciting, story starts to present itself over the course of a screenplay, you have to follow that. Well, you don’t have to. But you probably should.
The ending of this script is its biggest talking point. Some people aren’t sure what to make of keeping Sharon Tate alive. What’s the message there? I actually think the ending is the most powerful moment in the film because here’s the thing about the Manson family. Everybody was obsessed with how nonsensical and random the murders were. And what I think Tarantino was trying to say was that they could’ve just as easily walked into a different house and the result would’ve been totally different. That a certain set of circumstances had to go right for them to be able to do what they did. Because these weren’t trained killers. They were clueless acid-tripping hippies. And had they walked into a house with a couple of big strong dudes, they might’ve gotten their a**es handed to them. Tarantino is showing just how random Hollywood and life is. That one little decision here or there changes EVERYTHING. In that ending, Rick Dalton does end up meeting Roman Polanski. And maybe he does become a movie star.
So where does this leave me on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? Believe it or not, I loved it. Even with all my criticisms, Tarantino brings a knowledge and a love to filmmaking that you can’t quantify in sluglines and parentheticals. As much as the lack of plot hurt the script, it helped the movie. The less we thought about plot, the more realistic everything seemed. When characters aren’t saying things like, “We need to get the tesseract before Loki,” we’re less likely to remember that we’re watching a movie. And that’s what Tarantino does here. He brings us back to 1969 and presents a narrative that’s so easy-going, it doesn’t feel like a movie at all. It feels like we’re really there. And for me, it felt like like I was REALLY REALLY there, because I was. I watched this at the Arclight on Sunset, and 70% of Once Upon A Time was shot right in that area.
So it was just a very immersive experience. There are always screenwriting lesson to be learned from Tarantino. But I wouldn’t look too deep into what he’s doing here and say, “I’m going to do that, too.” This guy is operating on another level. But if there is a lesson to take away from this, I’d say that it’s, write about something you love more than anything. Cause it really comes through on the page when you do.
[ ] What the hell did I just watch?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the price of admission
[x] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: There’s a line of dialogue in the last scene of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood that exemplifies why Tarantino is so far ahead of everyone else. Major spoiler by the way. In the scene, ambulances and police cars have just left after cleaning up the Manson attack. Sharon Tate’s friend, Jay, standing behind the gate, spots Rick and asks what happened. Rick introduces himself. “Hi, I’m Rick Dalton. I live next door.” I don’t remember the exact response, so I’ll paraphrase it. Jay says, “Are you kidding? I know. Sharon Tate always says to me that if we ever need to take someone out, Jake Cahill from Bounty Law lives right next to us.” The fact that Tarantino went so far as to create a conversation off-screen that a character would then reference later in order to create a bond between two characters who have never met each other shows just how extensively he digs into his characters. It’s very likely Tarantino wrote some “off-screen” scenes, which are scenes between characters that won’t make the movie, but you do it as a writer to get to know the characters better. Does Jay have that line ready without that off-screen scene written? Probably not. Writers these days don’t take the time anymore, which is why we have so many empty surface-level films. Which is why we’re lucky to still have people like Tarantino working in the business.
