![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWell, I finally got around to watching A Marriage Story on Netflix and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood courtesy of "on demand". I'm not sure they are comparable. I liked both more than I suspected, so there's that.
1. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Quentin Tarantino's alleged last and final film, starring Leonardo Di Caprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Nicholas Hammond, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell, Rumor Willis, Luke Perry, Timothy Olyphiant, Al Pacino, Damian Lewis, and various others...works better if you are at all interested in 1960s and 1950s Hollywood, specifically "B" Westerns on Television and in film, and know something about the backgrounds of Sharon Tate, Burt Reynolds, Clint Eastwood, Carlton Ruse, Sam Wanamaker, James Stacey, and Steve McQueen. If you don't and you aren't that interested in this stuff or find it duller than dirt? This movie won't work for you at all. It's also somewhat violent and gory at the very end (although if you could make it through The Witcher, The Good Place or Buffy, you should be fine. The violence is comedic and hard to take too seriously. I found it hilarious but I admittedly have a dark sense of humor -- since I found The Trolley episode of the Good Place hilarious, and the Cohen Brothers films to be funny.)
Caveat? I grew up on this stuff and find the entertainment business fascinating. So, for me, the film was at its most entertaining when it was poking fun at 1950s and 60s Hollywood Television series. There's this long sequence in which they are filming a 1960s Western - I'm thinking it must have been based on Reynold's Hawk, which aired on television in the late 1960s. It includes a rather funny conversation between Dalton and an 8 year old actress, who gives him a lecture on method acting. Also a scene with Luke Perry (Perry's last film role) and Timothy Oliphiant. It may well be among the best bits in the movie.
The lead characters played by Di Caprio and Brad Pitt are loosely based on Burt Reynolds and his stunt double, best friend Carlton Ruse. I also think a little bit of Clint Eastwood's career was blended in with Reynolds. Since Reynold's did shoot a film he hated in Spain, Navajo Joe, while Eastwood did the Sergio Leone westerns and married a woman over there, while filming them. Nebraska Jim clearly stands in for Navajo Joe in the film -- Tarantino decided not to comment on the fact that Burt Reynolds played a lot of Native Americans and Mexicans in Hollywood, because of his looks. Possibly a wise move) and various other films -- similar to those that Rick Dalton does in the film. Armored Command is also commented on - although Tarantino combines it a little with Inglorious Bastards, I seriously doubt Reynolds used a flame thrower in Armored Command, but who knows.
Being a Quentin Tarantino film? No one is entirely likable in it. Also it's not exactly politically correct. There are however lots of film references in this movie -- it is a movie for film buffs. Tarantino's films always feel a bit like the sort of films that a geeky video store night manager would create or film buff. You know the guys that you used to talk to at length in those video stores? Or I did. They also reference the obscure films. Tarantino's films also tend to be light satire - with a touch of parody. He likes to poke fun at filmmaking and pop culture, occasionally commenting on it, and can at times feel a touch self-indulgent.
I'm not quite sure what he was trying to say with this film. On thematic level, I found it a bit disturbing and have mixed feelings regarding it. Tarantino's films are often best enjoyed on a superficial or film buff level and not on a socio-political one. That said, it could be interpreted one of two ways. Women seem to be seen as eye candy, or inept. The Tate films that are referenced are the Matt Helm film "Wrecking Ball" and "Valley of the Dolls". In Wrecking Ball, she plays the clutzy, karate chopping love interest of Matt Helm. A sexy spy, who falls head over heels for Helm. Tate tells the box office ticket gal that she plays the clutz in the film. And her role in Valley in the Dolls, she refers to as the one who does the porn films. The other women in the movie are portrayed as either sexy teases, or inept murderous creeps -- who aren't operating under their own agency but under the direction of a man. The male gaze as is true in all Taratino's films is more apparent here than usual. And they are portrayed as little more than eye candy for men. I would not call Once Upon a Time feminist in the least.
That said, it could be interpreted another way...it's worth stating that we're firmly in the perspective of two men who don't care about anyone outside of themselves. Cliff Booth is most likely a sociopath. He killed his wife who he saw as a nag. And actively objectifies women. He, himself, is hot of course - he's played by Brad Pitt, but he is also unsettling. There's a caged violence held at bay.
Rick Dalton is a narcissist, and doesn't really care about anyone outside of himself either. Both have a caged violence in them, which comes out in different ways.
Neither is hero material nor portrayed as heroes. Taratino prefers anti-heroes.
We're not really supposed to like his characters.
And Tate by contrast is shown as kind. Loving. A bit ditzy. And very innocent. Her films' aren't quite as violent as Dalton's. And she's surrounded by people, not isolated or alone.
The film culminates in among the funniest action sequences that I've seen on film to date. I laughed so hard that I started coughing and wheezing. At first I thought, what the hell am I watching? (And I was spoiled on it ahead of time, just couldn't remember the details). Then I just burst out laughing.
Say what you will about Tarantino, but his over-the-top action sequences are truly hilarious. (Particularly if you are a film geek and know something about action films.) The only other team of filmmakers who pulls off the exceedingly violent, yet insanely funny gore-fest action sequences are the Cohen Brothers. There's a skill to this sort of thing -- not everyone can pull it off. You kind have to set it up right, and insert equal parts realism with absurdity. Also it has to be neatly choreographed.
Tarantino sets this up brilliantly, with just the right amount of tension and anticipation. He also steals from history but puts his own ironic fantastical twist on it, rendering the historical villains of the piece to be comedic caricatures not worth our attention -- cartoon bad guys. In much the same way - as he'd rendered the Nazis in Inglorius Bastards and the plantation owners in Django Unchained (which I think I liked better).
The set-up is done early on with Booth, who buys the acid laced cigarette from one of Manson's followers, and visits Manson's ranch -- meeting the three would be villains about an hour into the film. We're given just enough information - to make it clear that the Manson groupies aren't afraid of Booth and hate him after his visit. Also enough to realize that Booth isn't afraid of them and doesn't take them that seriously. This is not going to end well. Add to that what we already all know about the Manson Murders aka Helter Skelter, and our own anticipation of what historically happened on August 8, 1969. The film starts in February 1969, with various flashbacks. And combines or blurs the years 1966-1969 in Reynold's career together somewhat.
The final or climatic battle is done against the back drop of various violent film sequences that Booth and Dalton have filmed. To the extent, that this feels like an absurdist commentary on them. It is also a battle that enhances their characters -- it makes sense Dalton and Booth would do this. And neither are really heroic about it. So much as annoyed and bewildered. It's as if a bunch of inept would be action actors and stunt people have entered their living space, while they are drunk and/or high -- and they aren't quite sure these people are real and don't quite care.
Add to that the irony, that if the hippie killers had just gone to the Tate house as requested, they'd have killed Tate instead. This too is commentary on the historical narrative -- in actuality, Manson wanted to kill Terry Melcher and Candace Bergen, his acquaintance, and got Tate and her friends instead. They chose a house with two men who have a done a lot of action scenes, and fight scenes, and as they put it - taught them how to murder.
I'm not sure what Tarantino is commenting on there...but it's interesting how he has one of the murderer's the creepiest one, and the one killed in the most outlandish fashion, state: "Let's kill the people in Hollywood who turned us into killers and taught us how to kill with their ceaseless violence on television! Everything on television with the exception of I Love Lucy is violent. Always violent. No wonder we are like this. It's their fault." Perhaps, Tarantino is looking and kind of winking at his audience, and saying, look, I'm just making these films what you choose to do with it is on you.
Every time I see a Tarantino film -- I feel like I'm having a long rambling discussion with a frustrated film professor/critic in a late night video rental shop. Possibly in the 1990s. It's oddly nostalgic. And may explain why I kind of enjoy his films in spite of myself.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie more than expected, and while I understand why Hollywood is giving it awards. I wouldn't have. (I liked Avengers:Endgame better...)
2. A Marriage Story - is directed and written by Noah Bombauch, who did The Squid and the Whale, and Frances Ha. He's not for everyone. Bombauch specializes in films about New York Upper Middle Class Angst. This one focuses on the divorce of a mildly successful theater owner, and his actress wife. Although how the divorce plays out -- reminds me a great deal of the people I've known who got divorced in my lifetime. So I can see why this film has gotten so much recognition - it is a realistic portrait of a divorce told for the most part from both sides of the equation. Although I felt that the male perspective often took more prominence than it should, and it was clearly written and directed by a white man. He attempts to show the other side of the equation, but it's not quite as evident nor does it feel as real. Actually, it feels a bit forced in places, although Scarlett Johannsen and Laura Dern, as the wife and her attorney, respectfully, are quite good as are Adam Driver, Ray Liotta and Alan Alda. But, well, this feels like too familiar territory.
That said, I felt it was far more balanced than say Kramer vs. Kramer. Although we get less of the child's perspective here. It becomes rather clear that the parents aren't really thinking of their son at all -- and it has become about themselves. Also, it's not necessarily sympathetic to Adam Driver's character, the theater director, who throughout the couple's marriage has put his career and desires above everyone else's and refuses to acknowledge it -- until he's evaluated by the court's child services rep to determine which parent the child would be better off with. Then he caves to his wife's desire to raise little Henry in LA and not NYC where they've resided for the last ten years.
I'd say it is painful, but I found it to be more of a bittersweet and at times laugh out loud funny character portrait of two people who love each other, unable to continue to be together -- and how nasty divorce can actually be. How their own selfish needs, desires, and egos destroy their family unit and separate them.
That said, much like Bombach's other works -- it's very...dysfunctional white upper middle class, and nothing we all haven't seen before. The people in this film are too selfish and too invested in awards and artistic accomplishment to ever realize why their lives are hollow.
I wouldn't have lavished it with awards. But I did enjoy it far more than I expected, but I do tend to like Bombach's films on average, even though I find his characters difficult to relate to or like all that much.
1. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Quentin Tarantino's alleged last and final film, starring Leonardo Di Caprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Nicholas Hammond, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell, Rumor Willis, Luke Perry, Timothy Olyphiant, Al Pacino, Damian Lewis, and various others...works better if you are at all interested in 1960s and 1950s Hollywood, specifically "B" Westerns on Television and in film, and know something about the backgrounds of Sharon Tate, Burt Reynolds, Clint Eastwood, Carlton Ruse, Sam Wanamaker, James Stacey, and Steve McQueen. If you don't and you aren't that interested in this stuff or find it duller than dirt? This movie won't work for you at all. It's also somewhat violent and gory at the very end (although if you could make it through The Witcher, The Good Place or Buffy, you should be fine. The violence is comedic and hard to take too seriously. I found it hilarious but I admittedly have a dark sense of humor -- since I found The Trolley episode of the Good Place hilarious, and the Cohen Brothers films to be funny.)
Caveat? I grew up on this stuff and find the entertainment business fascinating. So, for me, the film was at its most entertaining when it was poking fun at 1950s and 60s Hollywood Television series. There's this long sequence in which they are filming a 1960s Western - I'm thinking it must have been based on Reynold's Hawk, which aired on television in the late 1960s. It includes a rather funny conversation between Dalton and an 8 year old actress, who gives him a lecture on method acting. Also a scene with Luke Perry (Perry's last film role) and Timothy Oliphiant. It may well be among the best bits in the movie.
The lead characters played by Di Caprio and Brad Pitt are loosely based on Burt Reynolds and his stunt double, best friend Carlton Ruse. I also think a little bit of Clint Eastwood's career was blended in with Reynolds. Since Reynold's did shoot a film he hated in Spain, Navajo Joe, while Eastwood did the Sergio Leone westerns and married a woman over there, while filming them. Nebraska Jim clearly stands in for Navajo Joe in the film -- Tarantino decided not to comment on the fact that Burt Reynolds played a lot of Native Americans and Mexicans in Hollywood, because of his looks. Possibly a wise move) and various other films -- similar to those that Rick Dalton does in the film. Armored Command is also commented on - although Tarantino combines it a little with Inglorious Bastards, I seriously doubt Reynolds used a flame thrower in Armored Command, but who knows.
Being a Quentin Tarantino film? No one is entirely likable in it. Also it's not exactly politically correct. There are however lots of film references in this movie -- it is a movie for film buffs. Tarantino's films always feel a bit like the sort of films that a geeky video store night manager would create or film buff. You know the guys that you used to talk to at length in those video stores? Or I did. They also reference the obscure films. Tarantino's films also tend to be light satire - with a touch of parody. He likes to poke fun at filmmaking and pop culture, occasionally commenting on it, and can at times feel a touch self-indulgent.
I'm not quite sure what he was trying to say with this film. On thematic level, I found it a bit disturbing and have mixed feelings regarding it. Tarantino's films are often best enjoyed on a superficial or film buff level and not on a socio-political one. That said, it could be interpreted one of two ways. Women seem to be seen as eye candy, or inept. The Tate films that are referenced are the Matt Helm film "Wrecking Ball" and "Valley of the Dolls". In Wrecking Ball, she plays the clutzy, karate chopping love interest of Matt Helm. A sexy spy, who falls head over heels for Helm. Tate tells the box office ticket gal that she plays the clutz in the film. And her role in Valley in the Dolls, she refers to as the one who does the porn films. The other women in the movie are portrayed as either sexy teases, or inept murderous creeps -- who aren't operating under their own agency but under the direction of a man. The male gaze as is true in all Taratino's films is more apparent here than usual. And they are portrayed as little more than eye candy for men. I would not call Once Upon a Time feminist in the least.
That said, it could be interpreted another way...it's worth stating that we're firmly in the perspective of two men who don't care about anyone outside of themselves. Cliff Booth is most likely a sociopath. He killed his wife who he saw as a nag. And actively objectifies women. He, himself, is hot of course - he's played by Brad Pitt, but he is also unsettling. There's a caged violence held at bay.
Rick Dalton is a narcissist, and doesn't really care about anyone outside of himself either. Both have a caged violence in them, which comes out in different ways.
Neither is hero material nor portrayed as heroes. Taratino prefers anti-heroes.
We're not really supposed to like his characters.
And Tate by contrast is shown as kind. Loving. A bit ditzy. And very innocent. Her films' aren't quite as violent as Dalton's. And she's surrounded by people, not isolated or alone.
The film culminates in among the funniest action sequences that I've seen on film to date. I laughed so hard that I started coughing and wheezing. At first I thought, what the hell am I watching? (And I was spoiled on it ahead of time, just couldn't remember the details). Then I just burst out laughing.
Say what you will about Tarantino, but his over-the-top action sequences are truly hilarious. (Particularly if you are a film geek and know something about action films.) The only other team of filmmakers who pulls off the exceedingly violent, yet insanely funny gore-fest action sequences are the Cohen Brothers. There's a skill to this sort of thing -- not everyone can pull it off. You kind have to set it up right, and insert equal parts realism with absurdity. Also it has to be neatly choreographed.
Tarantino sets this up brilliantly, with just the right amount of tension and anticipation. He also steals from history but puts his own ironic fantastical twist on it, rendering the historical villains of the piece to be comedic caricatures not worth our attention -- cartoon bad guys. In much the same way - as he'd rendered the Nazis in Inglorius Bastards and the plantation owners in Django Unchained (which I think I liked better).
The set-up is done early on with Booth, who buys the acid laced cigarette from one of Manson's followers, and visits Manson's ranch -- meeting the three would be villains about an hour into the film. We're given just enough information - to make it clear that the Manson groupies aren't afraid of Booth and hate him after his visit. Also enough to realize that Booth isn't afraid of them and doesn't take them that seriously. This is not going to end well. Add to that what we already all know about the Manson Murders aka Helter Skelter, and our own anticipation of what historically happened on August 8, 1969. The film starts in February 1969, with various flashbacks. And combines or blurs the years 1966-1969 in Reynold's career together somewhat.
The final or climatic battle is done against the back drop of various violent film sequences that Booth and Dalton have filmed. To the extent, that this feels like an absurdist commentary on them. It is also a battle that enhances their characters -- it makes sense Dalton and Booth would do this. And neither are really heroic about it. So much as annoyed and bewildered. It's as if a bunch of inept would be action actors and stunt people have entered their living space, while they are drunk and/or high -- and they aren't quite sure these people are real and don't quite care.
Add to that the irony, that if the hippie killers had just gone to the Tate house as requested, they'd have killed Tate instead. This too is commentary on the historical narrative -- in actuality, Manson wanted to kill Terry Melcher and Candace Bergen, his acquaintance, and got Tate and her friends instead. They chose a house with two men who have a done a lot of action scenes, and fight scenes, and as they put it - taught them how to murder.
I'm not sure what Tarantino is commenting on there...but it's interesting how he has one of the murderer's the creepiest one, and the one killed in the most outlandish fashion, state: "Let's kill the people in Hollywood who turned us into killers and taught us how to kill with their ceaseless violence on television! Everything on television with the exception of I Love Lucy is violent. Always violent. No wonder we are like this. It's their fault." Perhaps, Tarantino is looking and kind of winking at his audience, and saying, look, I'm just making these films what you choose to do with it is on you.
Every time I see a Tarantino film -- I feel like I'm having a long rambling discussion with a frustrated film professor/critic in a late night video rental shop. Possibly in the 1990s. It's oddly nostalgic. And may explain why I kind of enjoy his films in spite of myself.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie more than expected, and while I understand why Hollywood is giving it awards. I wouldn't have. (I liked Avengers:Endgame better...)
2. A Marriage Story - is directed and written by Noah Bombauch, who did The Squid and the Whale, and Frances Ha. He's not for everyone. Bombauch specializes in films about New York Upper Middle Class Angst. This one focuses on the divorce of a mildly successful theater owner, and his actress wife. Although how the divorce plays out -- reminds me a great deal of the people I've known who got divorced in my lifetime. So I can see why this film has gotten so much recognition - it is a realistic portrait of a divorce told for the most part from both sides of the equation. Although I felt that the male perspective often took more prominence than it should, and it was clearly written and directed by a white man. He attempts to show the other side of the equation, but it's not quite as evident nor does it feel as real. Actually, it feels a bit forced in places, although Scarlett Johannsen and Laura Dern, as the wife and her attorney, respectfully, are quite good as are Adam Driver, Ray Liotta and Alan Alda. But, well, this feels like too familiar territory.
That said, I felt it was far more balanced than say Kramer vs. Kramer. Although we get less of the child's perspective here. It becomes rather clear that the parents aren't really thinking of their son at all -- and it has become about themselves. Also, it's not necessarily sympathetic to Adam Driver's character, the theater director, who throughout the couple's marriage has put his career and desires above everyone else's and refuses to acknowledge it -- until he's evaluated by the court's child services rep to determine which parent the child would be better off with. Then he caves to his wife's desire to raise little Henry in LA and not NYC where they've resided for the last ten years.
I'd say it is painful, but I found it to be more of a bittersweet and at times laugh out loud funny character portrait of two people who love each other, unable to continue to be together -- and how nasty divorce can actually be. How their own selfish needs, desires, and egos destroy their family unit and separate them.
That said, much like Bombach's other works -- it's very...dysfunctional white upper middle class, and nothing we all haven't seen before. The people in this film are too selfish and too invested in awards and artistic accomplishment to ever realize why their lives are hollow.
I wouldn't have lavished it with awards. But I did enjoy it far more than I expected, but I do tend to like Bombach's films on average, even though I find his characters difficult to relate to or like all that much.
no subject
Date: 2020-02-09 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-02-09 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-02-09 03:41 pm (UTC)I liked the movie.
[ETA: I'm also going into menopause and my hormones aren't reliable at the moment. For some reason, I'm edgy this morning and easily triggered for example.]