 |
| Scene from Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood |
Last Monday, the Oscar nominations were announced and cut the competition in half for all of the major categories. Now it's down to the wire with only a few weeks until The Academy Awards answer all of the questions that movie fans have been clamoring for: what will win Best Picture, Best Actor, etc. It's the territory that comes with every year, and this one is no slouch, presenting a variety of front-runners that are undeniable charmers. If one was to follow conventional awards rules, 1917 would be the front-runner, followed closely by Parasite (one of few films to win the Screen Actors Guild Award's prize for Best Ensemble without another acting nomination). However, there is one that's lingering just under the surface, and one that makes a lot of sense if one was to apply Oscar trends on it.
Director Quentin Tarantino's proposed penultimate film Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood is a film that has become forgotten in recent weeks of awards season. With exception to Brad Pitt winning Best Supporting Actor, it hasn't exactly had any consistency since winning Best Comedy or Musical at the Golden Globes. Even then, one has to merely look at the campaign to see how brilliant their approach to a Best Picture win is. It wasn't just the decision to release the film in the dumping grounds of August, almost 50 years to the date of Sharon Tate's untimely death. It was everything around it, which has only proven it to have a longevity that half of the nominees have yet to prove (save for maybe Parasite, now in its fourth month of theatrical release). Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood isn't just one of Tarantino's most accessible films, it's arguably the one that appeals to Academy biases the most. In a time where the old clash with the new class of voters, few films feel as connecting (both in appeal and themes) quite like Tarantino's film.
To be fair, the Best Picture race has been exciting because of who else is leading the category. 1917 is an unconventional narrative, even by war cinema standards, and would mark a win for an ambitious film that tells its story largely through action. If Parasite wins, it will be even more of a groundbreaking moment, presenting the first foreign language winner in The Academy's history. With that said, Parasite's unfortunate demise may share something with last year's Roma: a Spanish-language Netflix film that won Best Director but came up short in Best Picture. Many see Best International Film (which Roma won and Parasite is nominated for) as the consolation prize with voters choosing to give it that prize over the more prestigious and crowded field. While Parasite has the advantage of not being a Netflix/streaming service movie that brings its own baggage to the table, it will have a lot to do to break from recent conventions, which favor more universal crowd-pleasers like Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody over challenging art. It's not an insult. It's the result of having voters that appeal to different areas of the populous, meaning that there has to be a cross-section where a film can't be too controversial or avant-garde but still have something appealing and universal.
1917 may have that, but Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood has it by virtue of that last word: Hollywood. One can make the argument that fewer films nominated in the past 10 years have been as geared towards The Oscar as much as this. This isn't just a film that pays tribute to the past. Those films tend to get reserved for one or two acting nominations at best (see: Judy, Bombshell, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood). No, what Tarantino did is something that many have cried for as digital cinema becomes more prevalent, where streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Studios fight to have their say in the race. There is a desire to return to something simpler, which is a lot of ways was what launched Green Book to a Best Picture win. While the film was capable of standing on its own, it was a nostalgic look back at how people got along in the past with humor and warmth. Controversy aside, it was a film that presented the good in humanity, and if one was to argue about the good in cinema's humanity, one merely needs to look at Tarantino's career.
In a year where Martin Scorsese's The Irishman finds the master playing with special effects to de-age actors in a Netflix movie, there's something more stark about Tarantino: a director now approaching 30 years in the business. He hit the scene big time with the career-defining Pulp Fiction which won him the first of two Best Original Screenplay Oscars (the other being Django Unchained). However, he is a man of old school technique both in narrative and in how he reconstructed Los Angeles county to look like it was straight out of 1969. Every billboard feels like it was put up yesterday for the first time, and the fact that the freeways remain empty is a head-scratching detail for anyone who has to commute there. His choice to shoot on film is also appealing, and the fact that there's a meta quality in casting Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt in major roles, reflecting how the old way of filmmaking is giving way for a new generation with the likes of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie). To see him mix obscure reality with fiction like this is maybe the funnest cinematic trick of 2019, even if it comes with controversy (most notably in the case of casting Mike Moh as Bruce Lee in a role where he gets beaten by Pitt's drunken, aged character).
The truth is that nobody loves what Hollywood embodied in the late 20th century like Tarantino. The fact that he got the Sunset Strip to temporarily change its look is something only a master filmmaker would do, choosing not to go with each digital alterations. There's even moments where he reshoots old TV westerns so authentically that one is convinced he just dropped DiCaprio into a real show. While the film may be light on plot, opting for an epic hangout movie that interweaves multiple narratives, the results are intoxicating as they find the director's gift of character better than his more adrenalized narratives of recent years like Django Unchained. Yes, there are moments of brutality. However, Tarantino feels like he is loading a slingshot throughout the film, saving up the animosity for the best possible moment to launch it and deliver a pretty great punchline. The ending is controversial depending on how well you know the Manson Murders (as Twitter discourse will suggest: people under 30 don't really), but it paints the ultimate Hollywood ending. Tarantino's cinema has shifted towards depicting an alternate reality where good prevails over evil, often by skewering genre tropes to find their deeper humanity. In this case, he is tackling the drama. This may as well be his On Golden Pond moment as Pitt gets high and attacks intruders because under the brutality is this loving protection of Tate as a figure who deserved better.
This is the vision that Hollywood wants of itself. It wants to believe that everyone will get their fair share. Considering that 2019 feels like another shifting point in pop culture ephemera, the choice to recognize a film about the insecurity of fading relevance almost seems right. The majority of voters are either actors or people who have worked with actors. They are familiar with someone like DiCaprio's Rick Dalton, who seems a little out of place as a younger class takes over. They don't know Hollywood like Dalton does, and he has to take paycheck gigs in Italy just to make ends meet. The desperation is always there, but Tarantino is more interested in trying to see these figures thrive in the few shots that they get. As Dalton fades as an actor, his stunt double Cliff Booth travels through Hollywood as if living out a real-life version of the fantasy, taking on the Manson family in a pseudo-western showdown and later at his own home. It's genre skewering on an even slighter level than his violent dinner theater of The Hateful Eight. It's maybe even fantasy by the end.
As much as this is a film that perfectly captures the shifting tide in relation to DiCaprio and Pitt's careers (the latter getting Oscar traction for a role that would be seen as a legacy win), it also feels like the moment that Tarantino will get his due. As one of the most memorable self-marketers in film history, Tarantino has claimed repeatedly that he will only direct nine movies. Part of the marketing's appeal was that this was the penultimate film. Its story of fading glory seems obvious in this context, especially with Tarantino recently arguing that filmmaking is "a young man's game." The sense that he won't be around much longer only creates a desire to reward one of the most influential filmmakers of the past 30 years. The impact of Pulp Fiction continues to be found in waves, mixing style with pop culture references while breaking genre conventions. It's almost the norm because of him. As a figure of the 1990's cinema, few have been as ubiquitous with the era as he was.
Which feels reminiscent of another 21st century Best Picture winner. Nowadays it is agreed that Martin Scorsese is one of the most acclaimed and successful directors of the New Hollywood movement. His impact can be seen in several Best Picture nominees over the course of decades. Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and then a string of them in the early 2000's all made one wonder when he was going to win. Oscar host Jon Stewart once joked that 3 Six Mafia had more Oscars than Scorsese did when they won Best Original Song for Hustle & Flow's "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp." One merely needed to wait to find out that he would be getting an overdue Best Director win (for which he got a standing ovation) for The Departed, which was in some ways a return to his gangster movie form. While few would call it his greatest work, its win marked a chance to right wrongs, much like giving Al Pacino the Best Actor award for Scent of a Woman. Everyone knew that Scorsese NEEDED to win an Oscar, but the fact that he was going on 40 years without one was almost criminal. The Departed's win was as much a reward of quality as it was what it symbolized.
For Tarantino, a film about the power of filmmaking seems abundantly obvious as a legacy win. It's his The Departed in that sense (never mind that DiCaprio and Pitt's names are on both). With many still feeling sour that Pulp Fiction lost Best Picture to Forrest Gump in 1994, this would be an overdue win to an artist who is making his fourth Best Picture appearance this year. The biggest difference is that Scorsese never gave off the sense that he was retiring, just that he was old and may end his career soon like most of his New Hollywood peers. Tarantino has been largely transparent about where his career is going for the better part of 20 years. He always wanted to make 10 films, which feels like a promise he always makes in press junkets. With that in mind, one has to apply their own speculation: is he serious? Given that he's going to be a father soon, will he retire to focus on family life and appear randomly at the New Beverly for screenings? There's a lot to ask, but it feels like a question he's asking Oscar voters: can you risk not giving Tarantino a Best Picture win at least once? Sure, he seems destined to win his third Best Original Screenplay Oscar this year, but Best Picture is where the kings of filmmaking go. Considering his place in the pantheon of filmmaking, is he not quantitatively one of the most influential?
Then again, one merely needs to look at the recent trend of Best Picture winners to see why Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood is more predictable than you'd think. Over the course of 2010-2018, the Best Picture winners largely shared a theme of media in their narratives:
2010: The King's Speech, King George VI hires a speech therapist to help him learn to communicate and lead a country via radio broadcasts.
2011: The Artist, George Valentin must come to terms with the shifting Hollywood landscape as the industry moves from silent cinema to talkies.
2012: Argo, C.I.A. agent Tony Mendez must create an operation based around a fake movie to be shot in Iran so that they can free hostages.
2013: 12 Years a Slave, while suffering under unfair imprisonment, Solomon Northup plays violin to please his racist slaveholders.
2014: Birdman, a Broadway actor named Riggan comes to terms with his career (itself a meta-commentary on Michael Keaton's time in Batman) while suffering a mental breakdown during the week before his potential career revival.
2015: Spotlight, a series of journalists for the Boston Globe uncover sexual assault allegations in the Catholic church that open up a series of scandals upon the story's publication.
2016: Moonlight, a story of a young black man coming to terms with his identity over the course of his life (arguably the only film on this list that doesn't follow this trend).
2017: The Shape of Water, Elisa befriends The Amphibian Man in a love story that pays homage to classic horror movies and musicals, and the gay roommate is constantly watching movies as he creates art.
2018: Green Book, Tony Lip is hired to drive pianist Dr. Donald Shelley around the American south to perform concerts during the late 1960s.
With exception to Moonlight, every one of these films have some connection to media having a cultural impact. It's something that may be present in other 2019 nominees, but feel less apparent in who the front-runners are. One could argue that the competitor in this realm is Joker, which subverts comic book tropes into socially conscious Sidney Lumet territory to show how media impacts the spread of radical ideas. While that does seem just as likely of a winner based on this logic, the career of director Todd Phillips is nowhere near as concrete or influential as Tarantino's. In fact, many have compared Phillips' work in Joker to Scorsese, already making him seem like more of an homage guy than an authentic artist. While 1917 has lead the awards circuit with more visibility, it lacks that American love of media. Parasite is a little closer, though director Bong Joon-ho's criticism of media is more subtle than his American counterparts.
If the trend continues, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood is bound to win Best Picture just because of how it symbolizes movie making as this pure and wonderful escapism. It's something that the old voters will appreciate, feeling reminiscent of their own bygone era; and that younger voters can appreciate in seeing Tarantino as one of their most influential filmmakers. It's a cross-section that feels more apparent than any other film on the list, and the fact that people have been talking about it since the first trailer dropped means that its cultural cache is incredibly strong. Yes, there are more controversies in it than just about any other nominee, but the cultural appreciation of the film is significantly richer than more divisive films like Joker. While there's room to argue that any of the nominees could fit this category, none of them feel as obvious. Even The Irishman service as Scorsese's "gangster movie to end all gangster movies" has lacked the steam necessary to stand a chance. Maybe what people want is something a little more old school and laid back, and that's what this unsuspecting epic has in spades.
This is of course given that trends continue off of recent years. After all, one could argue that every decade has its own thematic through-line in the winners. The 2000s had a personal identity. The 1990s were about reassessing history through epic pastiches. The next decade may shift even further, though it doesn't feel as likely yet that the 2020s have much of an identity. Maybe 1917 or Parasite winning will symbolize a new and exciting period going into the decade that will see The Academy turn 100. It seems possible, but not very likely. Right now it feels like they want to honor Tarantino while he's still working, and what better way than by acknowledging the good that their industry brings to the world. Sure, it's self-flagellating on some level, but the film's subtext is far richer than that. It's not just a film about Hollywood as an industry. It's about why we love movies in the first place, for that chance to escape reality and find happiness in a world that isn't. That is why it will likely win, especially in a year where voting is more truncated than usual and means that outside trends aren't allowed to properly form around these films. It's all up in the air.
No comments:
Post a Comment