The appeal of Quentin Tarantino: a tale of triangular fetishism...

Rating: 9/10 (24 August 2019)

"We" all anticipate the next Tarantino movie, like Scorsese and not so long ago Woody Allen. A Tarantino film is an event by itself: casting, trailers, ads, interviews attract us like candies to window-shopping eyes and our reaction is always the same "it's gonna be great".
Who's "we"? Maybe a generic term for movie fans who respect directors that don't try to make tear-jerkers, crowd-pleasers or Academy boot-kissers, Tarantino makes the movies HE likes and that's his trick: he belongs to a certain breed of directors who make their fans believe they also belong to a certain breed of "connaisseurs", an auteur without the pompous undertones. And the more polarizing he gets, the more exhilarating it is to belong to that little team of aficionados.
But why do "we" dig a director whose chief inspiration is camp and nostalgia?
Think about it, most of us appreciate good films, adore masterpieces and enjoy a few guilty pleasures, but if we had a choice between a Wilder or a Hitchcock classic and some badly-dubbed Kung Fu film or random sexploitation flick directed by an Italian named Steven, we'll probably stick to our guns and opt for quality... the "rep" is important, the rating too (we're on IMDb after all) and our time is too precious to care for celluloid trash no matter the nostalgic value... yet this trash was precious to QT, and because of that personal value and the way it made possible masterpieces like "Pulp Fiction", "Kill Bill" (I wasn't a fan of "Basterds" and "Django"), we connect them to a greatness they didn't have.
The result is simple: any B-movie made by QT is regarded as a sort of "Ed Wood"-like masterpiece, it's like the tools became the art, once he defined his skills and style -which were truly revolutionary- and became successful, the less he felt the need to revisit his art.
At the end, we don't love his films as much as the way they speak about what HE loves, the story doesn't matter when style is doing the storytelling.
And "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood" is pure 1969 style, a pivotal year for "New Hollywood" fans and those who're familiar with either the book or documentary "Easy Riders and Raging Bulls". It's also another occasion for QT to remind us of the movies, the TV programs, the era he grew up with and even a non-expert fan will appreciate the love-letter. But that's the catch for me, the film was enjoyable to the extent that it kept making connections with its era.
Rick Dalton, played by Leo Di Caprio was consistently inserted in fictional or existing shows where he played the heavy-who-always-loses, his struggles to give a fine start to his career was in line with the evolution of Hollywood and made for a great character's arc. Cliff Booth, the stunt double, played by Brad Pitt is like a macho version of his Chanel counterpart but I couldn't resist his confrontation with Bruce Lee, played by a scene-stealing Mike Moh.
As Sharon Tate, Margot Robbie has a touching moment where she smiles at the screen-performance of her real-life counterpart and she inspires a terrific cameo with Steve Mc Queen (Damian Lewis).
Those scenes are great because they do put us in the mood of then-Hollywood, but whenever we're stuck with fictional characters, the charm is lost, temporarily.
That's the problem when the story matters less than the cover, especially when the cover is Hollywood's history and the way Charles Manson put an end to its all-rainbow-and-flowers state of grace. But that's what makes the experience very particular. The horrific details of Tate's savage murder are still haunting me, I remember the aftermath interview of Polanski and how he insisted on Sharon never doing drugs or alcohol... so I was wondering how a film that involves the massacre of an innocent pregnant woman be tagged a comedy...
I watched it with the same dread as "In Cold Blood" and the generally lighthearted mood and the overplayed sweetness of Tate felt unsettling if not obscene.
But that's underestimating Tarantino who understood perfectly that he couldn't capitalize on such an event, and that it needed a revisionist take. It's the smart move for three reasons:
First, we hate the Manson killers so much that the violence that explode at the end had the good old Tarantinesque cathartic feel, and boy, did the climax feel good!
Secondly, it confronts the two "heroes" to reality again and that's where they're at their best.
Finally, it ties the plot together and gives its full meaning to the Pacino character who insisted that in Hollywood, the hero always wins. which is precisely why the film ends that way. The irony of Hollywood being that if life happened like in Hollywood movie, Tate would still be alive. "Once Upon a Time"... like in a Hollywood fairy tale. Style does the storytelling and QT isn't just one hell of a writer/director, even his directing tells stories.
And I thought Al didn't have an important role, he basically makes the film's statement. Leo and Brad have enough scenes to even garner a few nominations... and all Robbie did was irradiating her sweetness, making Tate a sort of overarching angel on that telegenic mess (a tactful touch).
I only regret a few moments that seem to beg for a Sound Editing Oscar nomination, fillers made of driving, smoking, feeding etc. Giving more value than needed to insignificant or inconsequent material wouldn't make "us" fans of QT but fetishists. Maybe a response to his own fetishism for old movies? Still, and this comes from someone who shares "that" fetishism, QT should lay off the foot thing, it's turning to an obsession.
Or maybe our love for QT is a metaphor for his own foot fetishism, this is a guy who enjoy campy "stinkers", but if he ever made some, would we tell?
In fact, does it ever stink with QT?