Connect with us

Editorials

[Spoilers] Quentin Tarantino Boldly Rewrites an American Nightmare in ‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’

Published

on

This article contains heavy spoilers.

Quentin Tarantino doesn’t tell stories the way other people tell stories. Tarantino’s flair for historical revisionism, in particular, began in earnest back in 2009, when his World War II film Inglourious Basterds flipped the script on Hitler and his Nazi forces, with Jewish soldiers coming together to wipe them off the face of the Earth. Tarantino provided a similar revisionist catharsis with Django Unchained a few years later, and he’s back this year with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, a bittersweet fantasy that idealizes one of Hollywood’s most infamous real-life nightmares. In Tarantino’s 1969, Charles Manson is a footnote rather than a headline. And Sharon Tate, pregnant and full of joy, makes it out of the 1960s alive.

In his own way, you could say Tarantino is using his filmmaking currency to right historical wrongs and make the world a better place, if only inside the faux reality of a movie theater. And though the grim subject matter may suggest otherwise, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is ultimately Tarantino’s most heartfelt, upbeat and altogether hopeful film to date; Tarantino once joked that his version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame would begin with the title character having his hump removed, so it should probably come as no surprise that his “Manson Family movie” is such a one-of-a-kind affair. The film does end in an ultra-violent clash, as Tarantino’s movies always do, but here Tarantino uses that violence for a purpose.

In Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, the violent final act is the film’s raw, primal catharsis, a bold new take on real-life events that could only ever come from the mind of Quentin Tarantino. In Tarantino’s take on the morning of August 9, 1969, the day is saved by Hollywood star Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his load-carrying stuntman Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), the two teaming up to obliterate Manson Family members Tex Watson, Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel with fists, a can of dog food and even a fully operational flamethrower that Dalton had used to kill Nazis in one of his films. In an almost comically over the top sequence that sees Tarantino hitting the release valve and allowing us to revel in his bloody alternate history, Dalton and Booth (plus Booth’s dog!) lay waste to the notorious murderers, and the film ends on a heartbreakingly beautiful note: Sharon Tate, still alive, invites Rick over for drinks.

It’s one of the most bittersweet endings in cinema history: sweet because Tarantino rewrites an alternate path for Sharon Tate on the infamous morning of 8/9/69, but bitter because we of course know that nothing can change what actually happened on that night. In reality, a pregnant Sharon Tate was brutally slain by the Manson Family, along with Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski and Abigail Folger. The murders rocked Hollywood and America at large, shattering any last shred of innocence and forever changing both the film industry and the country as a whole. The era of the free-loving hippy was horrifically brought to an end by the Charles Manson-orchestrated murders, and Hollywood was truly never the same again.

If Once Upon a Time in Hollywood feels a bit aimless prior to the final act that will have people talking for years to come, as well as a bit disjointed from the previous two+ hours, there’s a good reason for that. Tarantino’s 9th film, more than any other movie he’s made to date, is less about telling a direct story and more about capturing, living in and, in Tarantino’s own boundary-pushing way, preserving a special moment in time. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is Tarantino’s celebration of the Hollywood of the 1960s, before it was cruelly shattered by one of the most notorious madmen in American history. It’s a sentimental and mournful elegy for that time period (or at least Tarantino’s own personal fantasy version of that time period), and he beautifully preserves its innocence by preventing it from ever being taken away in the first place. We can only truly mourn that time by immersing ourselves in it first, and Tarantino takes his time making sure we’re able to do just that. It’s a hangout film at the end of the day, one rocked by shocking violence at the end of it. And isn’t that the ’60s, in a nutshell?

In some ways, Once Upon in Time in Hollywood, as the title suggests, really is the ultimate Hollywood fantasy, with Tarantino dreaming up two Hollywood talents as the heroes needed during a dark time in American history: a stuntman who mostly does all the heavy lifting, as stunt performers do, and a Hollywood action star who earns redemption by becoming a real-life version of the characters he was beloved for playing on screen during his “good guy” heyday. Everyone but the members of the Manson Family gets a “Hollywood ending” in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood; on a larger scale, Hollywood itself gets one of its own.

For Sharon Tate, the happy ending is simply that she gets to live beyond August 9, 1969, presumably giving birth to a healthy baby and enjoying a happy life as an actress and mother. Played by Margot Robbie, Tate is presented as an angelic figure throughout Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, the personification of the dreams-coming-true happiness that has long since passed fictional character Rick Dalton by. Seeing Tate in this light is both beautiful and heartbreaking; her happiness practically serves to haunt the movie, with Tate representing all that’s pure about Hollywood and the Manson Family looming in the background as the personification of all that’s dark and evil. There’s an unshakable feeling of doom that permeates even the film’s happiest moments, particularly the ones wherein Tarantino is observing Tate in the months prior to her real-life murder; but in Tarantino’s fantasy telling of the notorious events, the doom lifts, the clouds part, and the sun shines down on Hollywood.

Made with respect, love and sympathy for Sharon Tate and the appropriate disdain for Charles Manson and his “Family” – Tarantino deliberately refuses to even put any sort of spotlight on Manson himself – Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is quite frankly the only movie about the events of August 9, 1969 that ever needed to be made. We all know what happened, and we all know how awful it was. Fifty years later, seeing it *not* happen on the big screen is the single most beautiful, emotional thing Tarantino has ever brought to the table.

If only the real world were as magical as the movies can be.

Writer in the horror community since 2008. Editor in Chief of Bloody Disgusting. Owns Eli Roth's prop corpse from Piranha 3D. Has four awesome cats. Still plays with toys.

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading