The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Quentin Tarantino’s violent, impressive, and empty love letter to Hollywood

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a gorgeous film to experience, but is nearly ruined by its extreme assaults on decency.

Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio star in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood."(CNS photo/Sony)

MPAA Rating: R
USCCB Rating: O
Reel Rating, 3 out of 5 reels

(Disclaimer: Major spoilers ahead.)

It is rather rare that a movie is promoted for its director rather than its stars—especially when the stars involved are A-list actors. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is billed as the ninth film by director Quentin Tarantino, whose every film is a mini-event in the cinematic world. Famously a video rental store clerk turned superstar filmmaker, Tarantino makes pictures that frequently reference the masterpieces of the past. And so a movie set in the glory days of the studio system was probably inevitable. It has everything a former film student like myself loves in a movie: frequent cameos, obscure references to lingo of the trade, shout-outs to events of eras past, and the simple joy in the art form. But, as evident by John Mulderig’s review for the USCCB (“It … appeals to viewers’ worst instincts…”), it is not everyone’s cup of tea.

Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a veteran Western actor nearing the sunset of his career in 1969. While still making enough to live in mansion on Cielo Drive, he has been taking smaller and smaller parts for years and finds himself dreading the future. His only friend is former stuntman Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who is only too happy living in a trailer behind a drive-in theater and helping Rick with his daily tasks, especially acting as his impromptu chaffer after a string of DUIs. While attempting to salvage his career, Rick’s life becomes intertwined with the new neighbors next door, director Roman Polaski and his wife, the actress, Sharon Tate, as well as a strange group of hippies living in the desert where he used to film a television show.

If you know anything about Hollywood history, you can see where this is going.

Setting aside for a moment anything about the story, plot, or moral implications of Tarantino’s fetish for obscene violence, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a gorgeous film to experience. It has some of the best atmospheric elements of any film I’ve seen in the last ten years. The cinematography, music, clothing, art design, and simple mannerisms of the performers drips with the culture of late 1960s Los Angeles, when everyone smoked, neon lit up restaurants, miniskirts were hip, and you never know when a celebrity would walk by you in the streets. The film is over two-and-a-half hours long and takes its sweet time, lingering lovingly over finned cars and fringe jackets.

Again, for a film geek like me, it is better than catnip, but anyone with nostalgia for the era will enjoy the craftsmanship involved. My personal favorite homage is a fight scene between Cliff and Bruce Lee on the set of The Green Hornet. Peppered with humor, great dialogue, and silly action, it does not end the way one might think.

Yet beneath the glitz and glamour, there is trouble brewing. Perhaps no one summarized the era better when the British historian Paul Johnson called 1968 “America’s suicide attempt.” Many young people, embracing the sexual revolution and counter cultural movements, turned their backs on traditional beliefs and mores in a vain and often destructive attempt to find meaning. Charles Manson manipulated such impulses to create a violent, sex-driven cult, culminating in the infamous murder of Tate when she was in her eighth month of pregnancy.

Tarantino acknowledges that these cultural changes killed off his beloved golden age of cinema and more than a little of what made America a real, if flawed, moral superpower on the world stage. But he is not willing to admit how that “innocent time” was itself deeply tainted. So, for example, the films shows Polanski and Tate visiting the Playboy mansion, which seems fun and cheeky, but is actually a hotbed for infidelity and sexual assault. Rick himself is an obvious alcoholic, but Cliff makes no attempt to help him with his addiction.

The last scene is the most controversial, but given Tarantino’s love for revisionist history, it should not be too surprising. Until the end, Hollywood was almost a PG-13 movie. Sure, there was lots of swearing and smoking, but no sex or violence whatsoever. The film ends on the night of Sharon Tate’s murder, but this time the Mason clan shows up at Rick’s house. In the ten minutes that follow, Rick and Cliff kill the amateur murderers in the most tortuous, horrific ways possible including (but not limited to) repeated head slamming, knife stabbing, castration, drowning, and being burned alive with a World War II flame thrower.

The violence is hyperbolic and cartoonish, obviously intended to be cathartic. Yet simply the imagery itself is enough to be morally debase. Yes, they are villains to be punished, but they are still real people—brain-washed cult members barely out of their teens.

Until this radical 180 degree turn, the film is immensely enjoyable. DeCaprio and Pitt have never been better, and their onscreen friendship is genuinely heartwarming. Tarantino’s attempt to save Hollywood from one of its worst chapters is understandable—but not at the expense of such extreme assaults on decency. As a piece of entertainment, Hollywood succeeds wildly, but there isn’t any real or good lesson to be learned.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Nick Olszyk 124 Articles
Nick Olszyk teaches theology at Marist Catholic High School in Eugene, Oregon. He was raised on bad science fiction movies, jelly beans, and TV shows that make fun of bad science fiction movies. Visit him online at his website, Catholic Cinema Crusade.

7 Comments

    • Here’s some insight, perhaps:

      Those “kids” — young people drifting along without purpose — were cleverly brainwashed by Manson who zeroed in on their weaknesses.

      The youngest member, a teenage runaway and popular schoolgirl, told investigators Manson had brainwashed her and others with sex, LSD, constant Bible readings, rambling lectures about revolution and the continuous playing of the Beatles’ White Album.

      Manson and his ‘family’ of followers lived together at an abandoned and secluded movie set named Spahn Ranch where Manson used its isolation “as one of the many tools in his dangerous arsenal”, wrote Curbed in 2014.

      “Here he indoctrinated his followers through a series of acid trips, mandatory orgies, and hypnotic, repetitive lectures outlining Helter Skelter, the race war he was determined to start,” it said.

      Full piece: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-20/charles-manson-mastermind-of-murderous-cult-dead/8163390

  1. I don’t think I’ve been in a movie theatre since I saw the Passion of the Christ. Netflix holds no interest for me and I’d be dammed if I were to pay $1,000/year for cable. I’ll read books for entertainment and use my money to support the Missionaries of Charity. Wake me when the decadence is over.

  2. Obviously Tarantino is a gifted filmmaker, but – that being said – the films he makes are really nothing more than trash, and he should be ashamed of them, as should the others associated with them.

    “Violent, impressive and empty love letter to Hollywood.” Well chosen words.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Quentin Tarantino’s violent, impressive, and empty love letter to Hollywood -

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*