Disparate individuals adrift amongst the promise and prestige of the institutions of Hollywood, Tarantino's latest operates in a temporal which exudes the continuous contention between institutional structures and cultural change. Tarantino's revisionist historiography continues to romanticize epochs but Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is more incisive in its presentation of this particular epoch, one in which a sense of happiness or belonging is beholden to all characters in one way or another, with the means themselves being in a state of agitation. I think a lot of people seem to think their is an implication that Brad and Leo's characterizations are viewed through a lens of affirmation when that couldn't be further from the case, as they are the old guard, who themselves are trying to cling onto the notoriety and success granted to them by the cold institutional structures of Hollywood. Sharon Tate's treatment in this film is one of subtle grace, she is representative of seeds of change but a believer in these institutions, a character who through this revisionist lens speaks to a promise of change devoid of violence or force against the larger institutional apparatus. Could argue that while the ending provides a unique and elegant 'what if' scenario to the potential star of Sharon Tate, the film is also arguable pro-institution, with Tarantino's film being somewhat explicit in its desire for communication - discourse not debate - in an attempt to fulfill the dreams of desires of as many as possible without the use of violence through the studio apparatus. Film glides, rhythmic pacing and music impulses see him in peak form, and while Tarantino continues to hide between the superficiality of movie-making, unwilling to deconstruct the ontological relationship between the signs of the past and self in the present, this film feels like his most expansive cinematic effort, one that is the apotheosis of him as an artist.
Love of all things cinema brought me here.