Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino, July 26, 2019) Movie • Page 21

It actually took me awhile too. I caught it on Netflix a few years back finally. I don't think it got the hype that other movies got and since I was younger/the internet wasn't like it is now, it just didn't hit my radar. I super enjoyed it though.

 

All I know is that Basterds is number one.

 

fair enough, and i get what you’re saying now and have similar issues. all i was saying was that particular question the reporter asked about his female characters/amount of dialogue didn’t seem relevant at all to me, which still doesn’t excuse his response to it

 

I don’t know how much can really be expected of any press about this movie right now since it’s all still so secretive. Polanski’s portrayal is something tons of people are worried about, but just like that other question, we won’t have a good idea of what to make of it until we can actually see full reviews of the film or watch it for ourselves.

I know just for myself that if Leo gives some big gushing speech about how great Polanski is, that will be hard to listen to at face value within the context of the film. If that particular view is part of the deconstruction of the “loss of innocence” idea, then it could end up being interesting even if it’s jarring.

 

To be fair, how exactly can they portray Polanski within that to a point that people are fine with?

 

Well we talked before about the (very unlikely) possibility of him going down an alternate history route. They could also show more of how he treated people like Bruce Lee and others in the aftermath (as Justin mentioned) and keep that more true to life without glorifying him like has been done for decades.

His story as a tragedy has been well covered in various media and had a major role in how much the public let him get away with for so long, so it’s all worth being conscious of now. QT deciding to put him in this particular story in 2019 has a lot more weight on it than just having a real person in a film in general, especially when he has had “controversies” of his own.

 

It’d be kinda hard to tell the story of Sharon Tate without including Roman or acting like he doesn’t exist though. Idk, I feel like he’s really not gonna be a focus of the movie and is just there due to association. Not dismissing any of the points made though.

 

I believe the Polanski character has virtually no lines in the film

 

Right, I’m not saying that would be possible or necessarily make sense for the story. My main issue with the choice to tackle this at ALL is just a question of where money and energy and focus is being put in the present, and the last place that needs them is in the service of Polanski as a genius or cool dude or tragic figure.

I also would love for more focus on Sharon than often happens, so I hope her family’s blessing says more about her voice in the film than that random dialogue question the other day.

 

from what I can garner from reviews I've read, im assuming she's symbolic of an idea/culture of that time period that is central to the film

 

The trailers and promotional material seems to point that the focus is on Sharon and not Roman.

 

Time to start crossing my appendages for her to get to be an actual person and not just a symbol for everyone else.

 

To be honest, getting mad about Roman being a character in this really feels like a making a mountain out of a molehill kind of situation. Now understand I say that not to be condescending to people who are uncomfortable about it, what Roman did was heinous and I agree that his work should be viewed in a certain light because of it. That said, it really doesn’t seem like QT is trying to garner sympathy for Roman nor is he trying to praise him, it feels more like he’s part of the story that’s a part of this story and that’s about it.

 

That’s why we’re speculating and discussing how it could be done instead of condemning the film full stop. And why I keep saying that how it actually is in context is incredibly important. At this point all we know is that Leo’s character is personally really into him and that he may or may not have a very small role when it comes to screentime.

 

Leo’s character seems to be into fame as a whole. Polanski was on top of the world at that time, RB was a sensation. Tarantino wanted to make a film about his childhood. Manson was an integral part of that childhood. How do you have Manson without Tate? Tate without Polanski?

I don’t really think it’s problematic to have a character in the film be enamored with a hugely successful director who ties in directly with the Manson murders. His role in the film is most likely limited. I’d go so far as to say definitely limited, judging by the fact that it wasn’t brought up by critics as overly praising or being sympathetic towards Polanski

 

How else could you do it though? Like what are you wanting here, for QT to portray him as a super creepy guy or something? The events covered in the movie took place years before he committed that rape, what context are you talking about? Understand that I can see your points but I also don’t see why this is that big of a deal considering what he did isn’t the focus of the movie and has more to do with his association to the person that the movie focuses on. I guess what I’m getting at is even though Roman is a piece of shit, it doesn’t make sense to expect a movie to properly establish a certain “context” about a man who is being portrayed in a particular period of time prior to his crime.

 

I meant how he is portrayed within the context of THIS film. If he’s just on the margins completely I guess that’s whatever, but if they show Leo’s character waxing eloquent about how amazing he is and the film itself doesn’t choose to deconstruct that viewpoint at all, that’s not something I have any interest in seeing since the film doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

That’s where the speculation part comes in. Since none of has has seen the movie, we don’t know if Leo has any major realizations about how he views fame and Hollywood and specifically Polanski and they handle it in a way that has meaning for us looking back on the past with different knowledge than the characters. It may be done very well.

My issue isn’t that Polanski is a character in a film about the murders, but why a director who has scores of his own issues within the problematic Hollywood universe is choosing to tell that particular story right now in the first place, and what can be expected from it.

 

He wasn’t in the country when the murders happened, he doesn’t NEED to actually be on screen at all in this. Which is why it’s concerning for people to at least some degree that he’s in it in the first place.

 

I get the concern and have voiced it myself but without seeing the movie, knowing what we know at this current moment, there isn’t much to say about it

 

So they can’t show him prior to leaving? Again, this really doesn’t seem to be what people are trying to make this out to be.

 

It sounds like he’s only interested in *working* with him, as a means to reviving his career because at the time Polanski was “the hottest director alive.” If that’s the extent of it then that’s basically what I hoped it would be.

 

It’s not that he CAN’T, it just isn’t necessary, is what I’m saying.

 

That’s fair but I dunno, guess we’ll have to see what happens when the movie drops.

 

Did we ask/discuss if Dennis Wilson is in this at all?