How anger was different this time?

Rating: 7/10 (7 September 2019)

Tarantino is angry, very angry.
Tarantino can easily take you on a journey of anger. He can offer you a shocking scene at the beginning of the film as usual in his previous works. However, this time Tarantino is angry at the stagnation, slowness, stereotyping, and the change in the American cinema and the American society that happened in the 60s.
In "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" Tarantino presents 190 minutes of a stagnant, negative, and slow story, to put us in the psychological state that would make the anger and violence at the end of the film have a different impact on us.
My first impression of the movie was disappointment. I couldn't find the usual Tarantino I am used to. However, after re-reading it, I got a different idea about what was Tarantino trying to communicate.
When you choose to watch a movie by Robin Williams, you expect and wait to laugh while watching the movie. When you choose to watch a Wes Anderson movie you expect to be impressed by the cemetery of the cadres and genuine composition of the image. When you choose to watch a movie by Tarantino, you are undoubtedly expecting a film with a special taste of a director whose films are based on several distinctive themes that have made his films taste different.
For example, all of Tarantino's films are based mainly on the idea of revenge. All of his characters in the films have Nicknames, and he is generally fond of low angle shots, and it is also his habit to appear as an actor in most of his films.
This is his special recipe. Therefore, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is different as it does not contain those elements as clearly as the rest of his films. But despite this, the film is not bad at all, it's just different.
Tarantino loves breaking the rules, he rebels on everything that makes sense and expected. In this film, I think he is rebelling against himself and our "expectation" of his style.
So, what is Tarantino trying to say? And what makes him angry this time?
I think that Tarantino presents to us the changes that dominated the end of the 1960s in American cinema, and the society as well. There was a huge movement of replacement, a new wave of European filmmakers came with their style and images and replaced some genuine cinematic forms. The American society as a whole was witnessing the rise of Hippies, and their domination of many things that has been possessed by the previous generation. Tarantino made that very clear in the sequence of Spahn farm. (I personally didn't like the way Hippies were portrayed in the movie).
This is evident in several scenes as the film tells the story of a famous American actor "Rick Dalton", who was about to lose his glamor and become forgotten. He is always accompanied by his friend, the stuntman, "Cliff Booth".
At the beginning of the film, Rick faces the problem. Al Pacino, who plays a role as producer explicitly says to him: "Your fame is on the verge of danger, try to go elsewhere where you could still shine, try Italian movies."
Rick becomes very angry at this suggestion and strongly rejects it, but at the end of the film, we find him coming back from Italy after making four films there and even married an Italian woman who accompanied him to his home in Hollywood.
Also at the beginning of the first chapter, we find Rick Dalton surprised by the residence of Roman Polanski, the Polish director next to him.
Ironically, Polanski at this time had made several great works in Poland such as Knife in the Water but had not done anything in American cinema, he had not yet presented his masterpiece Chinatown. Despite this, Rick is desperately eager to work with him. However, at the end of the film, we discover that Polanski and his friends were passionate about getting to know Rick and wishing to be with him.
Tarantino then presents this to us in Steve McQueen's comment on Sharon Tate during the pool party. He comments on the absurdity of her emotional relationships as she rejected her American fiancÃ© and traveled to Europe and got in touch with Polanski and came with him to America while her former fiancÃ© was still waiting desperately for the moment she separates from Polanski and gets back to him.
It appears that it makes sense that Tarantino pours his anger on that group of Europeans who broke into that Hollywood composition and led to this chaos. Surprisingly, it explodes in ten minutes of violence against three Hippies teenagers who broke into Rick Dalton's house.
Those last 10 minutes of "Tarantino violence" were a vent for what was kept pressured for two and a half hours. The Hippies have been severely beaten with the distinctive Tarantino imprint when the violence blends with comedy as you watch a fierce street fight between three Hippies in one hand, a man and his dog and a half-naked woman speaking only Italian.
But was it the Hippies who deserved anger and punishment in this film? Was Tarantino trying to say that America was punishing the wrong party? Or did he want to say something else?
Additionally, the film recalled some of Tarantino's other works, such as burning out the Nazis, the bar scene and the hostages.
The film also presents Leonardo DiCaprio in a superbly complex role, provoking compassion and laughter.
Brad Pitt, too, despite the tiredness and exhaustion that appeared clearly on him - perhaps because of his 50-year-old age while presenting a character in the mid-30s - played a distinctive role with a wonderful comedic glimpse, manifested in most scenes including his fight with Bruce Lee.
The film is so good, different, and interesting.
I am not an expert of the history of the Hippies in America, but I think they have been unfairly portrayed and stereotyped in the film.
In the end, it is one of Tarantino's best feature films, and I hope he doesn't quit directing after his next film as he said.