Quentin Tarantino’s latest blockbuster, ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’, has had mixed reviews from movie fanatics and critics alike. The latter has been represented by the likes of Mark Kermode, who has personally argued that the film is “fantastically ill disciplined and indulgent” and that some scenes should have really been DVD Extras.[1] Kermode’s analysis however lacks dimension as this masterpiece offers so much more than just “shoe leather”[2]. Despite the cynicism, this motion picture must be looked at in one way only to be fully appreciated, and that is as a painting.
Tarantino talks us through his painting throughout the film and this is only recognisable when Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) meets Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie). This is the moment Tarantino wanted us to envision, an immovable illustration where there is nothing but the status quo. What does this mean? Tarantino wanted to show his audience, the perfect world. More importantly, he tells us that America has changed for the worst as we took a different path away from this. Tarantino pin points this when Americans abandoned their beloved western.
How so? Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is the locus of the painting as he envelops the ideals of the Western. Even though it is Dalton who played Jake Cahill in Bounty Law, Booth still encompasses more of the mannerisms and traits of a western hero than Rick. It is Booth who saves everyone from the Manson murderers. Tarantino makes the bold claim therefore that without this event happening, America and the world would move on and forget the love that they had for westerns. Killing the murderers instead changes the dynamic and Tarantino’s painting is finally understood. The Painting depicts a world where the western destroys drastic societal change and where the genre is still adored.
Putting aside the painting, Cliff Booth’s likeness to the Western identity can be likened to one of many Western heroes’. One in particular is Will Kane (played by Gary Cooper), the Marshall and principle character in Fred Zinnemann’s 1952 classic High Noon. Both Booth and Kane share a sense of honour to their society and themselves, which weighs into their overly masculine characters. Kane at the beginning of the film believes that he has to go back to Hadleyville whilst running away from the impending return of the villain, Frank Miller. Booth on the other hand starts fights with multiple people who have insulted him or who he has insulted, two examples being Bruce Lee and Charles ‘Tex’ Watson (One of the Manson murderers). One could argue that the reason for them fighting is not to preserve their masculinity, but to preserve their community and its dignity (Hadleyville from Miller’s supposed reign of terror and Hollywood from hippies and all those Cassius Clay haters!). This claim however forgets that they are both Western heroes and thus have the controversial ego to supply their obvious masculinity. Kane rejects members of the community who want to help him because he is too proud to call on the help of teenagers and elderly men. But when he needs help from able bodied men, they refuse him due to their dislike for him and their warmness to Miller. Booth is in a similar scenario because the Hollywood’s elites believe he killed his wife and got away with it. Because of this they make it difficult for Booth to continue his career as a stuntman, which makes him a societal outcast.
Why is it important that Booth is similar to the fictitious Western heroes of the era? It is because Western’s were vastly important to the American national identity in the post war years. Film historian Michael Coyne argues that the Western feeds upon the American historical desires of pushing westward against all foes and reclaiming individual freedom, traits which were eventually lost when the frontier closed.[3] “Westerns therefore focused on dreams frustrated and dreams fulfilled in virtually equal measure”.[4] All these traits point again to men like Kane and Booth. So, in reality, why did the Western die and this type of identity along with it? Copious amounts of violence.
It seems ironic that the thing that the Western was known for, would lead to its downfall, but it makes more sense once analysed. Coyne explains that the cultural explosion in the 60’s with political assassinations and public turmoil was cataclysmic in the destruction of the genre. He points to Kennedy’s assassination, the Vietnam war and even the Manson murders themselves as events that made Americans start believing that they could not cling unto concepts of American exceptionalism anymore.[5] Coyne also comments that the fall of the TV western and the rise in Police Dramas was a response to the Violence, decay and hypocrisy infecting Modern American society.[6]
The dying genre of the Western also coincided with the deterioration of masculinity. John Cawelti has said the case that the potent masculinity that was ever present in American society during the golden years of the western was decaying due to the cultural explosion of the 60’s and overbearing masculinity becoming unfashionable to Americans.[7] Alas, this cements why Booth’s personality was chastised by the Hollywood elite in the film.
This brings us back to the painting. With Tate’s death being a non-show and Booth’s heroic behaviour saving them, Tarantino paints his ideal society. This society is masculine, conservative and elitist, where life is more colourful, happier and simple. However, because his painting does not show the true historical event, his film must be viewed as puny, irresponsible and grotesque. However, this is not the painting’s true purpose. Tarantino depicts a massacre. No. Not of Sharon Tate and others killed in the murders. But the massacre of the true American way of life, the western. With this then, the true events that were not depicted in the film show the start of the apocalypse, the birth of modern America and Hollywood’s revolution.
[1] “Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood reviewed by Mark Kermode,” You Tube Video, 3:23, “kermodeandmayo”, 23 August, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoFJYIREYt4.
[2] Ibid
[3] Michael Coyne, The Crowded Prairie: American National Identity in the Hollywood Western, (London and New York: I.B Tauris Publishers, 1997).p. 2-3.
[4] Ibid, p.4
[5] Ibid, p.119-121
[6] Ibid, p.121
[7] John G. Cawelti, The Six-Gun Mystique (Bowling Green: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1971), p.58.
Comments