MovieChat Forums > Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019) Discussion > Critic David Thomson Attacks OUATIH in N...

Critic David Thomson Attacks OUATIH in New Book -- A Response

posted 4 years ago by ecarle (14979)
1 reply | jump to latest

There's a film critic named David Thomson who's been writing articles and books about movies for about four decades now; he's around 80 years old but still writes with intelligence and flair -- sometimes. Other times, he's rather obscure and incoherent. Other times, he's wrong...a little or a lot, it depends.

In his new book "Light in the Dark": A History of Film Directors -- he does a chapter on Quentin Tarantino, and to "stay current," he does about four pages on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. There are certain things he likes -- mainly the Leo and Brad aging buddy performances -- but certain things he doesn't.

Here are three things he doesn't -- with suggested responses:

ONE: Writes Thomson: "Why do we have the Al Pacino character? He does nothing for the storyline, except provide pretext for having Al in the picture."

Response: Well on the one hand, yes: QT wrote the role of Hollywood agent Marvin Schwarz for Pacino, and wanted him in the movie, and GOT him. Thomson is wrong: he does a LOT for the storyline: in his first (long) scene, he tells fading TV star Rick Dalton(Leo) why his TV career is tanking(too many villain roles; he's losing fights on screen) and where he can go win fights(in Italian spaghetti Westerns); Al then gets two short scenes where he actually does the work to GET Leo to Italy and work (Al watches "The FBI" episode and calls an employer for Rick; at lunch, Al makes a follow-up call and gets Rick the job.)

TWO: Writes Thomson: "The same could be said for Damian Lewis' droll impression of Steve McQueen and the aside to The Great Escape, things that stand in the way of following the picture for anyone not old enough to know who McQueen was, and he died (in 1980.) My twenty-four year old son found the scene an obstacle. (WHICH SCENE?) When I took the time to explain it, his perplexity only deepened. He likes movies to reach out to him. Without that gesture, one feels indifference to the project.

Response: I will agree that evidently a lot of young people today(25 and younger?) do not remember Steve McQueen, who was a big star in the 60's and after Bullitt(1968) became a superstar in the 70's before dying young of cancer at age 50 in 1980. But I'll bet a lot of young people DO know who McQueen was -- Bullitt and The Magnificent Seven and The Towering Inferno are movies that are still known today.

That said, you can figure that QT pitched this movie at least partly to the older audience out there -- 60 years on down -- who remember Steve McQueen and Sharon Tate and all the other markers of his 1969 world. (In that Great Escape discussion, Rick Dalton mentions now forgotten TV and minor actors George Maharis, George Peppard, and George Chakiris, too.)

In any event, you don't HAVE to know who Steve McQueen was to understand the information Damian Lewis imparts AS McQueen: how Sharon Tate had an ex-lover (Jay Sebring) in constant tow waiting for husband Roman Polanski to screw up(affairs? divorce?) and cede her back to Sebring. And the "Great Escape" scene shows us how Rick Dalton dreams of a big movie lead he never got.

THREE AND FINAL: Thomson really seems to hate that fantasy ending where Brad Pitt(mainly) and Leo DiCaprio(helping) kill off the three real-life Manson family killers of Sharon Tate before they can kill her, thus giving a horrific tragedy a happy ending. Thomson says:
"I've seen the film several times and the audience always rocks with laughter...what a lark! what a wow! What a disgrace!...and one that we have been accomplices to."

Response: Well that's like, just your opinion man. And he's entitled to it. Me, I like to think that the final act of OUAITH allows us to experience "two feelings at once": as the Stones (Baby you're) "Out of Time" plays on the soundtrack and Kurt Russell counts down the hours from day to dusk to late night....we feel the REAL tragedy of the impending horrible death of Sharon Tate and her house guests, there is a very sad feeling that never really goes away. (Especially the scene in the Mexican restaurant where we sense her pregnancy depression and how hot the August night is.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

CONT

And then -- the movie swerves into the "fantasy ending" of Cliff and his killer dog so easily (and brutally) killing off two of the Manson killers and wounding the third enough for Rick to finish her off with a flame thrower. That IS satisfying, too, for a variety of reasons.

Mainly: in real life, even after committing such horrific murders(both the Tate group and a married couple at home the next night, all stabbed multiple times if not shot), a lot of us watched as Manson and his family 'put on a show" and became celebrities even as they were heading to prison; as their death sentences were commuted to life; as certain members of the radical SDS praised them for their killings of the rich; and as Charlie Manson in particular became a "get" for celebrity prison interviews. The Mansons lived on in infamy and its rather pleasing to see this movie treat them with the utter contempt they deserve -- Brad Pitt pretty much makes fun of them before destroying them (he also punches out a well-cast version of one of Manson's more idiotic looking real-life male followers, at the Spahn ranch.)

David Thomson sells his books because he knows film history and stays up to date. He also rather cannily "picks fights" about movies. I'd say that his essay on "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is a nice mix of opinions you can take or leave -- mixed in with totally wrong assumptions about characters and scenes.