MovieChat Forums > Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019) Discussion > Manson family (spoiler)

Manson family (spoiler)

posted a year ago by alex321 (66)
11 replies | jump to latest

What was the point of having the Manson cult members attack the Dalton house instead of the Tate house? From what I've read, Tarantino had to have Sharon Tate's sister approval to have her portrayed in the movie (which I'm guessing she didn't want to see her sister go through what she went through in real life) so why even have them in the movie at all? Since both DiCaprio and Pitt's characters are fictional why not also have a fictional cult gang? The blending of fictional characters with real life people just didn't really make sense if the purpose was to recreate the era as Tarantino remembers it while having some restrictions on what he could do with one particular character/person in which case it almost comes across as a mockery rather than a tribute.

[–] capuchin (3212) a year ago

From what I've read, Tarantino had to have Sharon Tate's sister approval to have her portrayed in the movie

No. Debra Tate wrote an article expressing her concerns, having heard that Tarantino was making a Manson Family movie. Didn't a lot of us think 'Oh dear. Really?' when we heard that Tarantino was making a Manson Family movie?

So Tarantino contacted Tate, spent some time with her and allowed her to read the script to reassure her that he wasn't making an exploitative film about her sister's murder. He was doing Tate a courtesy. No 'approval' was needed from anyone.

[–] alex321 (66) a year ago

Ok. I still think it didn't make sense to have her in the movie as well as the Manson gang and not even connect them. I sympathize with her sister's concern but in the case of not wanting to exploit the situation why even have her in the movie? A brief scene with her would have been fine but making her a somewhat important character and changing historical events felt exploitative IMO.

[–] SamNoyoun (5883) a year ago

I still think it didn't make sense to have her in the movie as well as the Manson gang and not even connect them.

Methinks you need to watch the movie again and pay better attention this time! There are several Manson/Tate connections earlier in the film and the reason for the change of plans at the end re: Rick's house is clearly shown...

[–] capuchin (3212) a year ago

I still think it didn't make sense to have her in the movie as well as the Manson gang and not even connect them.

But they are connected. Unfortunately. People think 'Sharon Tate' and they immediately think about the hideous way she died. You don't need the two to be explicitly linked in the story, because anyone who knows about the case knows about the connection.

Debra Tate has said that she would like Sharon to be remembered for her 'potential' rather than for her murder. And that's really what the movie is doing. It shows us Sharon Tate just living her life. It shows us Sharon Tate watching herself in one of her movies. And finally it allows to imagine what might have happened if Sharon Tate hadn't been murdered by maniacs. It's kind of a partial decoupling of Tate from Manson, as much as one can do that, giving her a form other than that of a victim.

I'd say that isn't exploitative at all. I think it's very respectful.

[–] alex321 (66) a year ago

There are several Manson/Tate connections

I must have missed the connections but what I am referring to mainly is what obviously happened in reality and the changes Tarantino decided to make to alter history and therefore not connect Tate's ultimate fate at the hands of the Manson cult.

To Capuchin,

A tribute to Sharon Tate is completely understandable but if you want her to be remembered for her potential rather than her murder, the best thing you can do is to not involve Manson. This is a case of wanting your cake and eating it too on Tarantino's part. He wanted to celebrate her life but at the same time also have the Manson cult around because they are part of her story but not connect them with the reality of what happened. It's just an impossible thing to do unless you recreate historical events in which case it doesn't pay tribute but rather exploits the situation to create an alternate reality.

[–] Yatzo (1928) a year ago

Great insightful post!

[–] DancingintheDark (1675) a year ago

The point is to build tension and suspense with the knowledge we the audience have of what actually transpired and then subvert our expectations into a celebratory revenge killing of the would be murderers.
This was Tarantino’s plan from the beginning, he never intended to have Sharon murdered, his plan was always to leave us with a fairytale like ending where Sharon lives happily ever after and the Manson Cult gets exactly what’s coming to them.

[–] alex321 (66) a year ago

I will accept the fairytale interpretation but I still feel like it wasn't well executed. To create an alternate history where Sharon lives would be to simply not have the Manson cult in the movie or include them in the movie but have their plan diverted and not see them breaking and entering into a famous actor's house and attempt murder as it just sits to close to the reality of what truly happened.

[–] SamNoyoun (5883) a year ago

You should read the book, I think you'd like it because QT handled the last act quite a bit differently in his novelization!

[–] SamNoyoun (5883) a year ago

The point is to build tension and suspense with the knowledge we the audience have of what actually transpired and then subvert our expectations into a celebratory revenge killing of the would be murderers.

And there you have it! Thank you, DitD , you put it much more eloquently than I could have hoped to...

[–] DancingintheDark (1675) a year ago

You’re very welcome and thank you for the kind words.