Tarantino did it again. In the world of haste and immediacy, he managed to gather a multitude of people in a room for three hours, without looking at his cell phone and without speaking, just for the pleasure of watching the cinema. That’s exactly what he gave us, CINE in capital letters, with pure love for seventh art, credentials and everything that loves this director. Was it once? Hollywood is the filmmaker’s newest film that has inscribed its identity in the collective imagination for decades.
When an artist, regardless of type, does what he really feels, it’s easy to see, tarantino now has an audience eagerly waiting for his next feature film, as well as money to pay for his productions and let him do what he really wants. .
- Whether this choice is right or fashionable.
- Quentin Tarantino recreates his influences.
- Immerses himself in his fetishes and offers us a different way of rewriting history.
- Reinterpreting everything that was.
- But could be.
- Dancing with the absolute.
Was it once? Hollywood proves that not everything has been said, that not all commercial cinema is the same, and that there are still people willing to sit for hours and get carried away.
It seems that the film was made not for anyone, but for himself, therein lies the key to his success, this festival in which, unlike its predecessors, tomato sauce must wait until the end.
Tarantino learned cinema by watching cinema, with the jewels, the forgotten and the rejected of the seventh art, that is what he wants to convey to his audience, because even in the dark there can be art.
From the beginning of his career, he has made it clear that he puts everything he loves in his cinema, from music to the bombardment of references as a filmmaker, to his fetishes.
You can learn about film by watching a Tarantino movie, you can search among the spaghetti westerns that are old-fashioned and immerse yourself in kung fu to discover real diamonds that the most commercial cinema has wanted to hide from viewers.
Art goes far beyond fashion, taxes and politics; art should be evaluated simply as art, if a director we like offers a film (directly or indirectly), we may end up giving it a try.
When did we see the trailer for Once Upon a Time?Hollywood, confusion reigned. Although we know we love the filmmaker, although we know his filmography, we weren’t sure what to expect.
Would you talk about Charles Manson and the “family” murders?Was it a fictional story?A tribute to the old glories of Western Americans who fled to Europe in search of a better role?Yes and no, and a little bit of everything.
Was it once? Hollywood is a swing of references; it is almost impossible to capture them all, and even more interestingly to leave the cinema and comment with friends what intertextual elements each has identified. We have all grown up in a legacy culture and are more or less predisposed to grasp certain messages.
Quentin Tarantino shows before our eyes everything he loves, woutes him or not, and builds a story that may or may not have happened.
Following this idea of references, the title itself evokes a filmmaker deeply admired by Tarantino, who has never hidden his love of Sergio Leone’s cinema.
Leone wrote two? Stories? With titles similar to the one we are talking about today: on the one hand, what was his last spaghetti western, Once Upon a Time in the West; on the other, what would be the great North American experience of the Italian, Once Upon a Time in America, the feature film that the dream of the United States could not appreciate.
The nostalgic element is present from the first sequences, idealized Hollywood transforms into an inhospit environment in which actors must adapt to what happens at a certain age, a grotesque, unlikely and real fable at the same time, which ends up showing the bitterest face of the film industry.
All this happens amid a familiar and tragic element: the murder of Sharon Tate, who presents hes heses hesitation as a life-filled young woman who seeks to delight her audience by watching one of her films laughing.
We, the public, know his tragic fate and inevitably sympathize and sympathize with his gaze, but also with that of an actor who could be Clint Eastwood, who suffered the consequences of his maturity, and an industry that worked. without giving him a chance to shine.
Nostalgia emanates from all corners of the screen, the memory of a glorious time, but tormented by hardness, intermingled with Tarantino’s dream, his idea of “telling otherwise what might have happened”. choreographic violence characteristic of his cinema; pathetic, beautiful and equally funny violence.
At times, we seem to see two films at once, two truths or two lies that end up consting into a surprising, laughable and, at the same time, terrifying ending.
WARNING: From now on, the article may contain spoilers
Tarantino offers us a Hollywood story of the past, of a place where dreams come true, but disappear as easily as smoke. The story of the real characters is intertwined with that of fictional characters, although they may also have belonged to reality.
In fact, was it once? Hollywood plays with our knowledge of time, plunges us into streets flooded with vehicles of the past and introduces us to young people?Charles Manson’s family through an easily recognizable song, I’ll never say forever.
But do we really expect to see Sharon Tate’s tragic ending in a Tarantino film?No, absolutely not. This is not the kind of violence that the director appreciates, it is not the aesthetic violence, entertaining and softened by the music to which we are accustomed.
While Sharon Tate may not be one of the most basic characters in the film, the truth is that the filmmaker plays with blocking and composing so that our gaze is directed at her, at all times.
For example, you wear her yellow at a crowded party, her camera moves so that our attention is focused on the young woman, forces us to show empathy with her and to meet her without too many words.
Do we know Sharon through the opinions of other characters and how she interacts with her surroundings, would she really introduce us to a character in such a tender way to show us the most terrible of endings?Of course not, and if we pay attention to it. , at the beginning of the film Tarantino already reveals its ending.
Thanks to a scene that looks directly like one of his previous films, Inglourious Bastards, viewers can, without much difficulty, anticipate the ending. What did you do with Inglourious Bastards? He rewrote the story, took revenge on a dark episode of the past and ended up murdering Adolf Hitler himself.
So this reference from the beginning connects us directly with what we will see in Once Upon a Time? Hollywood No, we are not going to see raw, tragic and painful violence, but funny violence, a dance of blood, flames and action.
Stories that, apparently, are distant, but connect in an eclectic ending. Meticulously thought out details and constant play, anything is possible in Tarantino cinema, and Era uma Vez em?Hollywood thus becomes a tribute to film, to the seventh art, and a demonstration of its ability to tell stories, satirize life, laugh at everything and, above all, have fun.
Tomato sauce waits, but it presents itself as a catharsis, as a release from our consciousness, as a “that’s how things should have gone. “