MovieChat Forums > Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019) Discussion > Lets discuss the so called plot (spoiler...

Lets discuss the so called plot (spoilers!)

posted 2 years ago by moviechatterer (15697)
21 replies | jump to latest

so the plot was
"Fading actor and unemployed stuntman buddy get attacked by weirdos"
Most films have a plot that can be summarized like that , in a line or two , that aint a summary THATS IT !
ok , im being a bit harsh , there were two plot points that built up to that.
Cliff stuintman befriends hippie chick hitch hiker .
Cliff stuntman visits squat where she live and finds its an old friends property and he's invited some hippies to live there . (who turn out to be the aforementioned killers)

ok thats really it . thats the entire story of this movie .
those scenes comprise about 20 mins of the 2+ hour film.

So about that story .....

Do the psycho killers turn up at Leonardos house because of Cliffs visit to their house?
or is it totally random?

{edit}
I forgot the subplot, Leonardo thinks he can revive his career if the newer cooler neighbors invite him over.

[–] DeadMac1 (207) 2 years ago

Cliff stuintman befriends hippie chick hitch hiker .
Cliff stuntman visits squat where she live and finds its an old friends property and he's invited some hippies to live there .

No, this is also not a plot. He just goes there and pays visit to his friend. That's it. Nothing happens. For the sake of action, QT adds Cliff's flat tire. That's it. Nothing substantial happens and Cliff goes off. There's no connection of this entire scene to any other sub-plot or the entire plotless sense of the movie. This scene also does not establish any psychotic nature of the hippies or an upcoming threat to come.

The entire movie doesn't spell anything about Charles Manson and/or the motivation of the Manson family. Infact, QT unapologetically or rather shamelessly does not form a foundation of Manson family or the murders that happened in true life. He blandly assumes that all the audience in the entire world watching the movie will be very much aware of Charles Manson and the hippies and the murder that occurred that un-fateful night.

Its a movie purely made for QT himself so he could jerk-off at home, relive the late 60s era, watch Margot Robbie's legs, laugh out loud at Bruce Lee and get satisfied watching the hippies getting killed whilst saving Sharon Tate whom QT must be a big fan of.

Do the psycho killers turn up at Leonardos house because of Cliffs visit to their house?
or is it totally random?

Random, my friend. Random.

[–] ProFromDover (286) 2 years ago

I wanted to like it. Though I was clearly a skeptic. I wasn't buying in to the plot, before seeing it. I was excited to see a film I didn't believe in, which was strange.
Thought maybe this would have redeeming values. There were some things to appreicate but for me there were more things not to like.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Do the psycho killers turn up at Leonardos house because of Cliffs visit to their house?
or is it totally random?

---

Though there is certainly the issue that if one doesn't know the true story of the Manson Family and Sharon Tate, there's a problem here, if you DO, the situation plays out with heapin' helpin' of coincidence rather than randomness.

This is the play:

On instructions of Manson, Tex and the women arrive to go up to the house where Sharon Tate lives to kill her and everybody else there. Reason: the house HAD been owned by music producer Terry Melcher(the son of actress-singer Doris Day), and Manson felt that Melcher had double-crossed him on a non-existent record deal. "Kill everybody and anybody in the house," even though Melcher didn't live there anymore and Tate and Polanski were temporary renters.

All of that is true.

In THIS story, the killers decide to "switch the killings" once they know TV star Rick Dalton(who has just insulted them) lives next door. One of the women goes for counterculture analysis: kill the Western TV star who taught them about killing violence.

Dalton's TV show is the reason for the "switch;" Cliff Booth being in the house (after having recently visted Spahnn Ranch) is the coincidence.

If I personally "buy" of this, it is because they establish that Cliff and Rick and the Mansons keep crossing paths all through the movie, they live relatively near each other, intersect with the same people (Rick Dalton's neighbor may well have BEEN Terry Melcher for awhile before Tate moved in.) Cliff saw that Manson girl in the area a couple of times before he picked her up and took her to the Spahn Ranch. And as the Spahnn ranch is where they filmed TV Westerns, both Cliff and Rick would be well acquainted with it (and with George Spahnn.)

So: coincidental but not random.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

PS. In real life, any number of Hollywood actors (like Brit Michael Caine) and music people(like some of the Beach Boys, who befriended them) claim to have been at parties where Charlie Manson and his girls showed up, accepted into them into their "fake hippie" society. Caine wrote that he was creeped out by them; Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys hung with them. Key: Charlie provided all the men with his "girls."

So in our "fictional" world with Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth, it makes sense that they would cross paths with the Mansons sometime -- Cliff sees Charlie himself from up on the roof when he's repairing the antenna.

[–] DeadMac1 (207) 2 years ago

Agreed, but why this movie fails is because I'm sure that not even 0.1% of the global audience know about Charles Manson and his hippie family. While watching, they all must've felt 'WTF, what's happening', because first thing first there's no foundation established for the story about the psychotic nature of Charles Manson and what happened that night in reality. The audience just don't know the motivation of the hippies; why they came their in first place and why all of a sudden decided to outright kill all of them in the house.

In Inglorious Basterds, we all knew who was Hitler, why the extreme hate towards the most notorious real-life villain of human history. And watching the barbaric killings of the nazi soldiers were justified.

Had there been any knowledge established in the film by any means [directly or indirectly by any artistic way (and that's what direction is...that's the challenge for a skilled director)], the whole action at the end could get quite justified and audience would know that they are watching a satisfying history-altering entertainment. What QT did, simply ignored the audience's requirements, hired top actors, hired a great cinematographer and caked a story of a struggling actor to make the movie look smart.

It was simply inappropriate and just not done.

Even during repeat viewing and after gathering knowledge of the real life event, one will still miss that antagonist angle; will feel that something's amiss - to balance out the whole story. There's just no threat. I'm sure one still wouldn't feel for the characters also. No threat & characters felt; a dry movie.

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 2 years ago

movie fails is because I'm sure that not even 0.1% of the global audience know about Charles Manson and his hippie family. While watching, they all must've felt 'WTF, what's happening

I had some idea about manson, but after watching the movie i still didnt realise thats what it was about ,

also for people to get confused about the hippies at the end , they'd have to have sat through two and a half tedious hours of Nothing Happening!

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Agreed, but why this movie fails is because I'm sure that not even 0.1% of the global audience know about Charles Manson and his hippie family. While watching, they all must've felt 'WTF, what's happening', because first thing first there's no foundation established for the story about the psychotic nature of Charles Manson and what happened that night in reality. The audience just don't know the motivation of the hippies; why they came their in first place and why all of a sudden decided to outright kill all of them in the house.
--

All fair enough; I've read that certain older audience members for OATIH have had to explain the whole Manson Family story to younger viewers in their families; I had to, in mine.

But QT rolled the dice that ENOUGH people would know the Manson story (Charles Manson died in prison shortly before filming began on this movie, so he was "in the news again") or would tell the younger generation.

Which brings me to a key point: I am sure that QT brings in lot of young fans(to go along with the young haters who are intensely so)....but I figure he MUST have always had a fan contingent of 40, 50, 60 years old.

He is a writer-filmmaker who likes to reference movies like "The Enemy Below"(with Robert Mitchum and Curd Jurgens, from the 50's) , "The Guns of Navarone" and "The Wicked Dreams of Paula Schultz"( from the 60's), and TV shows like "Get Christie Love" from the 70's...not to mention 60s TV Westerns like The Virginian and The Rebel(from which much of the plot of The Hateful Eight was lifted, if not the dialogue and details)

You can bet a lot of older people DO get those references, and DID remember how horrific the Mansons were.

And Jackie Brown was pitched to middle-aged audiences, given the middle-aged romance of middle-aged Pam Grier and middle-aged Robert Forster, along with middle-aged villains Sam Jackson and Bob DeNiro.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was QT's second biggest hit ever -- it likely would have been his first biggest hit ever if it had been allowed to play the massive Chinese market -- but QT wouldn't cut the Bruce Lee scene.

So it had SOME audience. Maybe for Brad and Leo, together for the first time. Maybe for Pacino in his first QT movie. Maybe for Brad, Leo and Pacino together. Maybe for Margot Robbie.

But also because enough older people wanted to take a revisionist look at the crummy monsters who were the Mansons, and to relive a very particular time in American life.

And enough younger people came along for the ride.

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 2 years ago

good analysis 👍

[–] Ldlamb (639) 2 years ago

Not every movie has to be for “global audience”….and I can’t believe that anywhere near such a small percentage of Americans know about Charles Manson..

[–] DeadMac1 (207) 2 years ago

Not every movie has to be for “global audience”

Then don't release such movie outside the US and don't waste foreign people's time & money.

[–] skipper (316) 2 years ago

I am very happy that OUATIH was released outside the US. This is one of my favourite movies! I am not American and I have been very aware for decades about the Tate/LaBianca murders.

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 2 years ago

I knew beforehand that Manson was some guy in prison who ran a sort of cult and ordered killings in the 70s

At the end of this movie I still didnt realise I'd just watched a movie about the manson story.

am i supposed to know what his house looked like in order to get it?

[–] TheMouseShadow (418) 2 years ago

Lmao what was the plot of pulp fiction? You either like this kind of movie or you don’t. It was Leo’s best performance ever.

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21515) 2 years ago

Any man who can’t relate to Leo’s fit in the trailer scene, just hasn’t lived. 😀

[–] CrabgrassWilly (1616) 2 years ago

Rick Dalton was an awesome character!

[–] snepts (11123) 2 years ago

Limiting a film with needing to be plot-driven seems ... well ... limiting.
Many, many a great film's plot is the merest excuse to give actors some great dialog and the director a palette to create magic with. Does Casablanca have a plot? Of course, but I don't think that's why we like it.
I would be hard pressed to say what the plot of Pulp Fiction is, too, with the way it's presented to us.
So I don't think the essence of this movie lies in the strength or weakness of the plot.

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 2 years ago

I agree a film needs all those things you said .
dialog , palette , characters all that stuff .
But it needs a plot more than that.
Plot on its own no good i grant you.
Plot needs to be fleshed out with 3d characters , good dialog .
But no plot no movie.

[–] Crocodile (3128) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] jcnyclv (1569) 2 years ago

I just saw it and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who didn't care for it. You're right, there was no plot! There was no story! I got very bored watching Pitt drive around, watching Robbie dance and hearing DiCaprio cough up a lung. I kept waiting for something to happen and it never happened! I couldn't watch the whole movie. I'm very disappointed and extremely surprised because I heard what a great movie it was but to me, it wasn't.

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 9 months ago

I enjoyed the movie for its time and place nostalgia but I also feel that it has been overly analyzed by critics.