Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is Good, Actually
It's a film, and a very divisive one at that! If you were in the twitter-sphere when it was released, there were essentially two opinions floating around:
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a very human, very good work of art. And it just so happens to further a thematic argument and a worldview that I pretty much completely disagree with.
I don't think that art should be limited to the didactic, I don't think that characters have to be "realistic,"* I don't think that every movie needs a balanced cast in terms of race and gender.** What I want is art that is human, that is unique, that is individual. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood checks all those boxes.
Do I want to see more films from women, from black people, from queer people? Of course. But the question of whether a Tarantino flick actually stops those films from happening is an economic one. And once our focus shifts to that, do you really think that Hollywood executives are gonna see a 2% drop in sales and just stop making movies with white people in them? The most they'll do is put out another Dwayne Johnson action movie, or give you some yummy corporate slop with an all-woman cast that will invariably bomb at box office.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood romanticizes the golden age of Hollywood, and it romanticizes every part of it. It is a tongue kiss to gratuitous violence, to cigarette smoke, to patriarchy. I used to be kind of uncomfortable with how the film sidestepped Roman Polanski's absolutely reprehensible actions. But Tarantino has created a time bubble: here is Hollywood as it seemed, however naive. And Tarantino's final argument is "wow, wouldn't it be good if the golden age of Hollywood lasted forever, if we never had to admit that our heroes turned out to be predatory monsters?" And that thematic argument is carried out to its full extent, for in Tarantino's mind, to romanticize only a part of the golden age would be dishonest.
Now, I disagree with what Tarantino is arguing; I would love to see the status quo go up in flames. But his argument is one made with no compromises, and one made stylishly.
*Tarantino's portrayal of Sharon Tate gets some flak for being one-dimensional enough to be sexist. I disagree on the grounds that none of the characters in this film act like real people—we need to look at Tarantino's Sharon Tate in context.
**There's a pretty good argument for having a "balanced" cast in children's media and blockbusters, the idea being that popular culture is conditioning, and it's important to have people grow up with a variety of images for possible roles/opportunities. That argument falls apart when we look at media that is intended for people of a certain age and above—I'm an adult, I do not need to be coddled with positive potential images for myself. Also note: the terrible things that happen when Wes Anderson tells his very white stories with a non-white cast.
- wow this is really good
- this is an immoral, sexist piece of garbage, and you should feel like a mangy dog for having watched it
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a very human, very good work of art. And it just so happens to further a thematic argument and a worldview that I pretty much completely disagree with.
I don't think that art should be limited to the didactic, I don't think that characters have to be "realistic,"* I don't think that every movie needs a balanced cast in terms of race and gender.** What I want is art that is human, that is unique, that is individual. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood checks all those boxes.
Do I want to see more films from women, from black people, from queer people? Of course. But the question of whether a Tarantino flick actually stops those films from happening is an economic one. And once our focus shifts to that, do you really think that Hollywood executives are gonna see a 2% drop in sales and just stop making movies with white people in them? The most they'll do is put out another Dwayne Johnson action movie, or give you some yummy corporate slop with an all-woman cast that will invariably bomb at box office.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood romanticizes the golden age of Hollywood, and it romanticizes every part of it. It is a tongue kiss to gratuitous violence, to cigarette smoke, to patriarchy. I used to be kind of uncomfortable with how the film sidestepped Roman Polanski's absolutely reprehensible actions. But Tarantino has created a time bubble: here is Hollywood as it seemed, however naive. And Tarantino's final argument is "wow, wouldn't it be good if the golden age of Hollywood lasted forever, if we never had to admit that our heroes turned out to be predatory monsters?" And that thematic argument is carried out to its full extent, for in Tarantino's mind, to romanticize only a part of the golden age would be dishonest.
Now, I disagree with what Tarantino is arguing; I would love to see the status quo go up in flames. But his argument is one made with no compromises, and one made stylishly.
*Tarantino's portrayal of Sharon Tate gets some flak for being one-dimensional enough to be sexist. I disagree on the grounds that none of the characters in this film act like real people—we need to look at Tarantino's Sharon Tate in context.
**There's a pretty good argument for having a "balanced" cast in children's media and blockbusters, the idea being that popular culture is conditioning, and it's important to have people grow up with a variety of images for possible roles/opportunities. That argument falls apart when we look at media that is intended for people of a certain age and above—I'm an adult, I do not need to be coddled with positive potential images for myself. Also note: the terrible things that happen when Wes Anderson tells his very white stories with a non-white cast.
Comments
Post a Comment