Tarantino turns his lens on Hollywood. Nostalgia and good casting ensue.

The paradox of the Tarantino oeuvre, notes film critic Peter Rainer, is that it is highly derivative and yet the films seem distinctly his.

Andrew Cooper/Sony-Columbia Pictures/AP
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as a fading TV actor in “Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood.”

When I heard Quentin Tarantino was making a movie about the Charles Manson murders, I flinched. Gifted as he is, I’ve always found the violence in his movies to be cringe-worthy because so often what we get are flagrant fantasias without any comprehension of what violence can actually do to both victims and perpetrators. Missing from Tarantino’s mindscape is the psychological consequence of violence. 

His new film, “Once Upon a Time in ... Hollywood,” is a multilayered narrative that draws on the Manson murders while primarily focusing on the relationship between Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) – a fading TV Western star whose career has been reduced to guest villain appearances and the occasional starring role in low-grade spaghetti Westerns – and Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), Dalton’s longtime stunt double and best buddy. A Vietnam veteran, Booth is rumored to have killed his wife years before and gotten away with it.

Taking a cue from its title, the movie is pitched as a species of fairy tale. The re-creation of Los Angeles circa 1969 is both scrupulous and dreamlike, but because we know the Manson murders are in the offing, the atmosphere has a noxious charge. We are supposed to regard the Hollywood we see as the era’s last stand of innocence before the lights went out. 

Considering that the year depicted was not long after both Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were shot, with the Vietnam War raging, this swan song to innocence comes across as a bit air-headed. Likewise, Tarantino’s take on the alcoholic Rick – that he was a casualty of the increasing impersonality of the entertainment industry – is directly at odds with the reality of a time when the vastly money-losing studio system first opened its doors to a new generation of personal filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Brian De Palma, and many others, directors who had a large influence on Tarantino. 

In terms of creative influences, though, Tarantino’s abiding love is for schlock, especially chopsocky movies and spaghetti Westerns, both of which are amply referenced in the latest film. Most of what is referenced, however, are low-grade TV shows like “Mannix.”  

The fact that Tarantino was only 6 when the movie’s events take place underscores the unreality of his nostalgia. What’s more, he appears to value schlock as aesthetically invigorating. He celebrates it and bemoans its passing. When Rick cries that he’s “not the best anymore,” the implication is that he once was. 

The paradox of Tarantino’s oeuvre is that it is highly derivative of other movies, mostly genre pulp, and yet the films seem distinctly his. He is the most influential director of his generation because he ranges promiscuously through pop culture and brings to his borrowings an incendiary force. But the transformations he wreaks on pop culture – like his antebellum blood bath “Django Unchained,” or his World War II actioner “Inglourious Basterds,” – are fairly simpleminded. Compared to how, say, Jean-Luc Godard or François Truffaut transmogrified their pulp sources, it’s child’s play. 

“Once Upon a Time in ... Hollywood” does have much to recommend it: Although DiCaprio seems miscast as an aging, washed-up actor (mostly because he never seems to age), Pitt, in a rangy, lived-in performance, is marvelous. As Sharon Tate, Margot Robbie is quite touching as the film’s golden emblem of innocence. In a wonderful scene, she sits in a public theater playing one of her movies and beams at the audience’s enjoyment.

Few directors can draw out tension in a scene with as much brio as Tarantino. What’s missing, for want of a better term, is a sense of aesthetic responsibility. In “Inglourious Basterds,” Tarantino turned the Holocaust into a pulpy revenge fantasy and in his new film, he does the same thing with the Manson murders. For all his stylistic sophistication, he remains Hollywood’s reigning adolescent. 

Rated R for language throughout, some strong graphic violence, drug use, and sexual references.  

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.