There are many great things about Warwick University. In my first week here, I have come to learn it is a truly spectacular place. One of those reasons is because of the student cinema: open to members of the university and the general public. After a jam-packed few days, I decided to head over to see ‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.’ I had heard of the film since mid-August, due to a multitude of picturesque posters and trailers being advertised throughout my summer stay in London. The aesthetics looked brilliant and, as with all cultural activities I intend to engage in, I went into the cinema knowing very little. I left in a slight daze and disappointment. For I am afraid to say that, despite the potential created by dream casting, this movie was one big wacky mess.
Let me start, however, with a compliment. I often do this in my critical reviews, for there are no cultural escapades I have attended that have been a complete and utter disaster. Yet. This film manages to question the vision of Hollywood - the place in California with dream views, housing and most iconic lettering - is just that, a vision. A facade, a dream that can never match reality. This is demonstrated best through Leonardo DiCaprio’s character Rick Dalton, an actor whose career is on the wane. Scenes will be completed in a majestic style, but once the director sets cut, the emptiness in his face and mind is evident to all. The film is set in the late 1960s, the time seen by many as the conclusion of Hollywood’s golden age. From the characters however, one would have to question whether there was ever a golden age. Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), Dalton’s stunt double and driver, struggles to get work, spends time feeding his dog, fixing roofs and getting in rather unnecessary fights. Meanwhile, Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) just strolls around different cinemas watching movies featuring herself, something I’ve often hear mainstream actors would never due to the sheer embarrassment. She seems very unfulfilled in her life, despite attending wild parties. It is due to their unfulfilling lifestyles, even though they are meant to have all the wealth in the world, that I find all their characteristics extremely dislikable. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t need to like a character to respect them or enjoy the movie as a whole. But I felt so little connection with their lives, there was no link I could make to connect with their stories. That is what film is supposed to do: tell great fictional stories which are representative of the truth for many. While it may appeal to 1960s stars, there wasn’t a way for me to emphasise in the same manner. As you can see, there are three revolving characters. Yet Dalton and Booth hardly ever interact with Sharon Tate. I am a massive fan of multiple narratives in any cultural medium, but a bond between the perspectives has to eventually be created. Indeed, while Pitt would drive DiCaprio around, they would often be pursuing different events altogether. Instead of telling three stories that united to form one whole, the film told, well, three separate stories. Events that do take place have poor pacing. It is either too fast or drags on painfully. On occasion, there are pointless scenes with no purpose at all. As BBC and Observer film critic Mark Kermode stated, there are multiple sections that could be placed in the DVD extras, for example Brad Pitt on his roof. Similarly, there are other sections where events are told rather than shown at supersonic speed: it is suddenly ‘six months later…’ where a mysterious voiceover reveals all that happens. Given the film is over two and half hours (far too long) one wonders why that time wasn’t used to show and reveal events rather than telling them. The tragedy of the Hollywood lifestyle is evident throughout. Perhaps another reason I am no fan of the characters is due to their promiscuous, hedonistic lifestyles. To get through the day, most are portrayed as smoking excessively, heavily drinking, taking many drugs and relying on substances that, in my view, should be socially disapproved of. There is far too much swearing which goes out of all reasonable proportion. The complete void and absence of meaning from their lives is again revealed. If the situation was so great, who would need drugs to get away from it. The stresses of acting, the insecurity of their careers and expectation the characters held Hollywood in have been exposed as fantasies. Obviously, I don’t believe reviews should reveal plot spoilers. That is for viewers to find out for themselves, whether through watching the film or browsing Wikipedia. However, all I will say is the ending couldn’t be more bizarre. The film goes from rolling along at a steady 40 miles per hour to finishing at the speed of light. Everything suddenly happens at once and it is done. It was all rather inconclusive, which, as someone who likes their film endings to be nicely tied up in a bow, was slightly irritating. Perhaps that was the representation for Hollywood as a whole; people work their whole careers to get there and eventually obtain the best roles and home. They believe they are living the dream, before realising it is just that, a dream. While Once Upon a Time… provides some useful metaphors relating to American Dream, the first Quentin Tarantino film I’d seen was not one that impressed, engaged or especially amused me: 2.5 stars at best.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|