So I'm among those who have a problem with the ending of his new movie.
For the most part I like every other thing about it: the story, the setting, the two main characters are interesting (the fading western star and his stunt double) and their lives and careers at the end of 1960s Hollywood. I like how Pitt and DiCaprio are shown in unglamourous moments, and pondering the future of their careers apart from the television shows they were so used to. In perhaps one of my favorite scenes, DiCaprio takes a lunch break (while filming a western tv show) to read a book, and meets another actor - a young child star who is also reading, and they stop to form an interesting bond before their scene together.
I liked the recreation of 1969 era Hollywood, and enjoyed all of the music and film references as well. My friend who is older knew pretty much every actual actor and film mentioned.
There is an actor who portrays Steve McQueen, and he looks just like him; it was at the moment where I really felt transported into this world and captivated.
So I didn't have a problem with how the fictional characters brush with real-life characters.
But the ending of the film bothered me because it isn't true to history of who was killed and who wasn't killed in real life. Spoiler - Sharon Tate doesn't die; she lives on. It's basically Tarantino's fantasy alternate universe now, as if he jumped into a time machine like in Back to the Future and altered events.
As a viewer I felt like I'm being asked to buy into this imaginative world in which the real-life victims were never murdered, and the actual killers are the ones who get killed. I'm supposed to be entertained by that?
There's something to that ending that I think Tarantino is trying to say but I'm not sure I fully understand. Maybe I'm not meant to understand. Maybe the ending is a dream that Dicaprio is having? That might make more sense interpreted that way.
A new post from A Shroud of Thoughts is a lovely tribute to Sharon Tate, reminding us she was a real person. I knew who she was going into to see the movie, and knew what happened to her. But no doubt, others may watch this film and have no idea. This recent post talks about who's real and who's fake in the film.
The real Sharon Tate may have lived in a "fictional"/ "dreamland" of Hollywood, but she was still a real person, and her life deserves respect. Or maybe a biographical film of her own one day.
Meanwhile, I won't write off Tarantino entirely yet. I will check out some of his additional interviews to better understand what he's trying to say with his film.
The fact that he made a film that has got me thinking after it's over may mean that it's a great film after all.
Here are some of the blogs I recently read for some other perspectives.
- The Collider Matt has some problems with the ending which I agree with.
- Cinematic Corner - Sati has the same problems that I have with the movie and also talked about audience reaction in her theater.
- Live for Films Adam echoes some other critics who call it "a love letter to Hollywood… to film making… and to film lovers"; in Amanda's review, she criticized the many female characters whose sole purpose is to react to the men around them.
- From the Front Row - "Going into a Quentin Tarantino movie, one usually has a certain set of expectations: there will be copious amounts of violence, creative (and constant) use of curse words, extensive references to older films, and lately, a new spin on familiar history."
Bobby Rivers, a teenager in 1969, has a few questions for Tarantino (me, too - the same).
Brian Camp, in his recent post, also was around in '69 and remembers some of the other films of that era.
Keith and the Movies posted about some criticisms of the film:
The author of this Variety article called this "the first dramatic feature about the Manson murders that has a happy ending. Good for him, I guess. And good for us. At least, if you believe that movies should be fairy tales." "Quentin makes the trashing of history look hip....that Sharon Tate “lives” is supposed to send us out on a feel-good cloud (when, in fact, it’s arguably a trivialization of her memory)" - I agree with that.
Videos
In this interview (below) from the Cannes Film Festival, Tarantino compares his film to the work of director Claude Lelouch.Tarantino and the main cast talk to Entertainment Weekly (below)
Below: Cinemablend talks to Quentin Tarantino for about 20 minutes here (Cinemablend is biased and loves Tarantino). In the interview, Tarantino knows his history, and all, but doesn't really talk about the ending.