Film Review : Once upon a time in Hollywood (2019)

Abstract - I try to demonstrate the importance of the technique ‘mise en abyme’ (film-in-film) to analyse different historical time frames and implicitly, to discover alternative histories.

I have not watched a lot of Tarantino and am not quite sure if Once upon a time in Hollywood (2019) was representative of his films. But, the film (OUTH) fondly reminded me of Bollywood calling (2001), a quite delightful Nagesh Kuknoor film that I had watched a few years ago. OUTH made me think of 2 kinds of films – a. films about films and b. films by Coen brothers, both these aspects owing respectively to the subject and the treatment given. 

Film about films

The subject of OUTH was a reminder of films in Hindi like Bollywood Calling and other commercial ones like Rangeela, The Dirty picture, Om Shanti Om. Such films deal with the film industry itself, its history, its techniques, the different issues it faces, etc. In western art theory, this is referred to as ‘mise en abyme’ - a reflexive technique where the content of a medium becomes the medium itself i.e. a play or a film talk about how they are made and in the process make theatre or art a reflective performance, an activity rather than a passive spectacle. This involves taking the spectators in confidence as if to solicit their suggestions about play/film making. OUTH, (being a film and not a play which is lot more interactive) didn’t quite involve participation of the viewers but, by delivering a ‘film-in-a-film’ at different points, Tarantino certainly tried to relive the making of western films and he makes us reflect on the golden era of western films. By narrating the stories of fading years and of attempts of redemption of Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his no-longer-required stuntman Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), OUTH touched upon a number of aspects pertaining to the production of westerners, the social living in Los Angeles, the upheaval set by television series, the vulnerabilities and uncertainties faced by actors, the functioning of the entertainment/cinema industry and the show biz life in the late 1960s.

Exploration of loss of Identity through mise en abyme

The frame-in-a-frame or film-in-film technique helps us also to make sense of the central character, Rick Dalton who is struggling to re-invent himself according to the changing times. We can easily identify 3 operational time frames – the viewer’s time (T1), the historical time of late 1960’s (T2) and the fictional time (T3 as shown on TV series and westerner films). We can further classify these time frames by ascribing T1a, T1b or T2a, T2b to individual histories of the characters, but let’s keep things simple and bare minimum to drive our point which is - the technique enables us to view different histories and see the transformation of the central character not just within his time frame of T3 or T2 but also from, T3 to T2. 

The very first scene of OUTH shows Dalton explaining the role of Booth, his stuntman. “Actors are required to do lot of dangerous stuff and Booth helps me carry the load”. Later on in the film, we also realize Dalton has become alcoholic, forgets his dialogues and feels threatened by a future failure. He is weary of director’s ideas and accepts them unwillingly in a bid to regain fame and popularity. During his glorious time, Dalton has been ably supported by his friend, Booth who complements him in various ways. Rick Dalton certainly has a few weaknesses and Booth is always around to cover those. The very idea of needing a stuntman suggests Dalton’s lack of something and his need and dependence on Booth. He requires Booth not just as a friend and chauffeur but as a professional crutch to further his career, gain more films. The re-invention however seems challenging as he doesn’t want to depend on his double anymore. Booth is thus a missing part of Rick Dalton’s identity.  

Booth, on the other hand, is quite full of his own self, lively and doesn’t care so much about others. He is least bothered by rumours of his killing his wife. He can take blows without being harmed and has the guts to smash Bruce Lee on the director’s wife’s car thus putting his career in jeopardy. This carefree attitude is seen missing in Dalton. I see the film as Dalton’s attempt to overcome his failures and move away from Booth. He succeeds only at the end when his decision to part ways with Booth works for him. This is where the transformation lies from T3 to T2. If on the sets, in the first part of the film, Dalton is seen as tame, hating to use arms, unable to use machines like flamethrower (T3), he succeeds in his endeavour (to re-invent himself in T2) given that the tame and shy Dalton fires a flamethrower with ease at the end of the film. This is, I think, the denouement, the scene that defines his fulfilment. By forsaking one’s part of missing identity, Rick acquires a kind of fulfilment of identity, if not complete. 

The mise en abyme also helps to understand the historical time of 1960s in US where the Television has made deep inroads in the drawing rooms. (Such a situation – i.e. the commercial success of the television series and its actors is very telling of the situation in India today where life without Television is impossible and unimaginable). The ‘mise en abyme’ technique is used by showing - a group of hippies watching TV, Tate watching her own film, Dicaprio, Brad Pitt and his dog sitting in front of TV, etc. This gives the impression that we all (the viewers) are watching the same film along with the actors and erases the levels of time (T3, T2) that exist between us and the on-screen actors. Such a technique thus pushes us to understand different operational levels of the film and also, importantly, compels us to think of the impact of westerners on social life and the way these films affect our psyche and influence our society. This film was a fantastic demonstration of how cinema, television and society influence each other in a number of ways. In fact, that is the very premise of the dénouement of the film. The hippie group comes to create ruckus and beat up a guy and eventually decides to kill Dalton, a television icon of the series named ‘bounty killer’. Dalton is about to receive the same treatment he has meted out to his adversaries in his series. This is a very good example showing the kind of ‘pervert’ influence of violence of TV on the youngsters.

The image of the hippies lazing around, sitting idle, consuming TV is significant. For one, at a basic level, it reproduces and reinforces an idea of a hippie, dozed and sedated. At another level, the sedation aspect works figuratively - to show the addiction and sedation of a whole generation of 1960s whose staple diet consists of consuming TV shows, serials, regularly. The TV itself becomes at such a point an important character of the film as on the one hand, all the important characters in the film thrive on TV and the cinema industry. On a broader level, TV has the potential to train the youth to act in certain ways and take them away from them their heady ideas of anarchy and revolution, as demonstrated by an absolute absence of counter attack by ABC who punctures Booth’s car. 

The Surreal

At the same time, OUTH bore a sensibility of a movie made by Coen brothers for its surreal element and for the way the film unsettles clear distinctions of different genres. In some of Coen brothers’ black comedy films, the stories often blur the boundaries between comedy, action, thriller, romance, etc. What we see is a mix of different genres in one film in such a way that a very funny scene can be seen as extremely tragic at the same time and vice versa. In their stories, the funny element can suddenly turn into an ugly, violent, grotesque affair. Such astute handling of comedy, tension and violence is their signature where the story line, if it seems slowly moving, suddenly stands and starts running. The same was the case of OUTH. If the first part moved slowly and even dragged a bit, the second part was quite a pacy thriller. The first part also is done in such a way that we wonder what the main plot/story is. 

Further, the surreal was lot more evident in the second part in tracking Cliff Booth’s movements in search of George Spawn, the owner of Spawn Ranch where Booth once filmed or in the way the Hippies abruptly decide to attack Rick Dalton and surprisingly, get counterattacked. Here, I must also mention another quite amusing scene – a wonderful and comical one between Rick Dalton and the little girl, Tex. She is just 8/9 years old, committed to acting, thoroughly professional and she talks, acts wisely as would a mature, seasoned old professional. In contrast, set against this innocent looking girl, Rick Dalton looks as if he has lost his charm and is terribly at loss of identity. He is an actor, famous one at that for his role in Bounty Law and yet, he is not in control of himself, he drinks a lot, forgets his part of dialogues, looks tired and is constantly bullied by the directors, producers and their teams. He is sick of being stereotyped a cowboy and is worried about his future. Such a purportedly funny scene drapes the anxiety of an actor who feels he has lost his charms. OUTH with different, parallel stories (enabled by the narration and words like ‘until then, in the meanwhile’, etc) had a few surreal moments that make it different from other films.  

Showing this anxiety of the cinema industry is important as it is often neglected by the general audience that treats entertainment/cinema/film industry as an easy profession and often, equates it to fun and frolic. However, the wonderful part of the film, I felt, is that it doesn’t become a caricature. Dalton looks funny and we sympathise with him, with his losing grip of stardom, his desperate attempts to revive his old charisma. And yet, the film doesn’t seem to make fun of him. This is something that the mainstream Bollywood movies can try to imbibe (though I also agree that the caricaturesque characters are themselves produced by circumstances of production of film in India).

Do you need to butcher a spirit in order to save it?

Do you need to butcher a spirit in order to save it?

Nikhil, I am much more in agony than led by any feeling of venom. I am feeling depressed and sick. Venom you said, No! I don’t think my thoughts and my stance are brewing any poison, poison if any, let it be used as an antidote to the general euphoria of the recent decision. Yes, I do certainly feel bitterly angered at what is happening and the way it has been unleashed on to us, on to them, as we have hardly thought of them as ours. Once you would have read this opinion, you might just as well despise me for I am questioning a move that you so vehemently support, but in fact, to me, it looks far more dangerous, immoral, unethical and importantly, a move that may permanently tragically alter the course of our history – be it constitutional, political and social. I agree on doing away with 370 but my concern lies on a much wider canvass – that of the immediate and long term fallouts and of the violence that may ensue. You just might as well think – here is another JNU, tukde gang fellow, that let this guy burn in hell and I will be okay with it as let me tell you, dear friend, my conscience is clear, pure and not compromised like the ones in power. I intend the least harm to my soldiers, the army personnel (putting them first in priority) as also my fellow citizens, my brothers and sisters, irrespective of their religions in this tension driven state. Let me also state that I have no hard feelings for Prasad and may be, the timing of my comment was just a little misplaced. Apologies for the same, Prasad, come over and we can go for a beer!  

Well, your point on abrogation – that it would always have been forceful is something I am unable to come to terms with. Very difficult to accept but yes, I am trying to cope up with that. It will take some time. For me, being a pacifist, I feel talking to all stakeholders and taking them in consideration should have been done. Right now, all the party members of all the top parties are under arrest and jailed. All communication systems and other services have been suspended. If one thinks ‘the people’ are important, shouldn’t there be a way to address their issues? Today is the fourth day of curfew. Imagine if you were there with your pregnant wife in your house seeking a doctor or your hospitalized mother, wouldn’t you feel outraged? Would you let this happen, let’s say, in Maharashtra if the Congress in power had jailed all BJP-Sena leaders? Is this a democracy? It’s rather a mockery of it under the guise of bringing peace and stability to the region. The rampant militarization, the sudden Tughlaqesque measure and to worsen matters, the lack of any dialogue is going to only aggravate the distrust Kashmiris feel about India. It is going to further alienate the people of the state. I was yesterday listening to Dr. Farooq Abdullah in tears who said this was not the India that they had subscribed to and this is a breach of trust. All this isn’t going to go well with the people there, I alarm you. 

Chetan said Kashmir is integral part of India. Ok, fair enough. But, isn’t it Indian under duress and whether it would like to belong to India or not, is something we need to look at. Shouldn’t the Kashmiri people given the choice to decide their own fate? Let them decide once and for all what they want. I mean logically speaking, if there is a joint family of 3 brothers and one wanting to move out, should he be put under gun point to stay together or we should just let him go? See, integral means “necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental.” In theory, why do we need Kashmir (with the Muslim separatists population, off course) to complete ourselves? Let them get f….d up by China or Pakistan. I think if we were to do a plebiscite there today, we would all know what the people really want and precisely for this same reason the Indian state and successive governments have been avoiding the plebiscite. They know very well that the plebiscite would point either to a separate state or towards Pakistan. However, keeping in mind our strategic interests, I think we shouldn’t do away with Kashmir. Thus, India should continue to possess Kashmir and if we want the land, we should rather accept the people (read Muslims) of the state as our own, and hence scrapping the article and treating them as equal, accepting them. Accepting the people would mean we embrace them with their differences. If we think of accepting them, letting them be amongst us, is that possible today? Let’s question the situation of our attitudes today vis-à-vis these people? How many Kashmiri people do we actually know? What do they eat? What literature they read? What do they really want? Do we have any idea about these things? What we know is that there is a Kashmiri dress à la Kashmir ki Kali, that Kashmir is a beautiful place full of gardens, apples and that there are lots of terrorists and they kill our army men. I don’t know anything more, what about you all? India needs to create a platform where we can feel mutual trust, a feeling of fraternity with people of Kashmir, which is not the case in my opinion.  

I was talking about the need for dialogues and the need to adopt them as our countrymen, something that has never happened as there is a profound sense of mistrust and suspicion on both sides, especially in Kashmiri people vis-à-vis the Indian state and vice versa too. Will any one of you meet a Kashmiri Muslim without a thought crossing your mind that he may have some terrorist links? Will any one of you let marry your sister and your brother to a Kashmiri Muslim family? Personally, I have been conditioned not to let that happen and I wonder you will agree with such an alliance. Deep down, we just want to own the land without caring about its occupants. And this is unfair. Let me give an analogy – very bad one, so be it… It’s unfortunate and unfair to impregnate forcefully a woman, take away her belongings, and abandon her along with her child, isn’t it? If one wishes to rape, so be it, let’s rape and then, at least in all humility, let’s accept the rape, own the child, accept the woman, irrespective of her caste, class, religion and her belongings as they are.

Nikhil raised three questions. First one, on whether the article will pass the litmus test. Hopefully, it will not as the previous judgment (2016) had said that the decision of the government flies in face of a 2016 judgment by a two-judge apex court Bench of (Retired) Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, which had held that the provision had over the years acquired permanent space in the Constitution and could not be abrogated now. (https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/over-to-the-law-next-fight-over-article-370-could-move-to-supreme-court-119080501722_1.html) 

My cynical self says it will just be a formality. I have that much confidence now after having seen the bills past in the very recent past. Our dispensation has men everywhere, CBI, the courts, the RBI’s and wherever one needs to pull one’s strings. In case if all this doesn’t work, the raw, sheer muscle power of Ram Lakhan is such that it knows no bounds. In case, if a Supreme Court judge doesn’t comply by, that wouldn’t worry anyone but the judge himself for his life. (There was a Justice Loya who disappeared in thin air) So, by public opinion and by general consensus, as long as our leaders say they are doing something for the (Hindu) nation, let’s support all their injustices, massacres, rapes, moves like demonetization (which by the way has now stopped corruption and terrorism). The tragedy is under the name of nation and religion, all is permitted - murders, lynching, rapes, custodial deaths and now, curbing of basic civil rights. And, we are allowing this to happen because it is the party of liberals, of great parliamentarians like Advani and Vajpayee. 

Your second point concerns normalcy. Do you think, Nikhil, if you are put to house arrest even without letting you know the reason for the same, how would you feel? Chetan said no one wants a gunman outside his house every day and if there are 5 lakh boots without any clarification, it is going to infuriate anyone who is put to such an ordeal. Such a move, I repeat, is preparing a situation that is going to be removed from anything than ‘normal’. It is preparing all of us for a new normal – a Syria or Palastine like situation, which will be mass deployment of army personnel, possibly (hopefully not) a permanent feature of that state. Once the curfew goes sooner or later, it is going to be extremely tricky and volatile and I hope, I pray peace prevails then. Now, you may argue that such a move (communication services suspended and curfew) is for the benefit and safety of the society there. But, this is not acceptable as even during times of serious war (Kargil war), there was no suspension of any communication networks. The locking up of the whole state is unimaginable and not permissible. And yes, Pakistan will deal this blow in no easy way. I do give a good laugh at jokes pointed to Imran Khan but his statement yesterday was very strong – ‘Hope for the best and prepare for the worst’.    

Chetan said, story on ground of Kashmir is way different. It gives me the impression that one visit to Kashmir and the interaction at the airport have made him understand all the problems of the youth of Kashmir. Don’t feel bad but if such visits can be revealing, my brother, there have been so many official interlocutors to the state and yet, no solutions for the disgruntled youth. What you need in Kashmir are cinema halls, shopping malls, entertainment, yes, we want consumerism at its very best, in all parts of the country! You will have all this, dear friend, only if we get back to a livable normal life and that is going to be a very distant future, thanks to what happened on Monday. The same thing applies to purchasing of land. I mean, how many Kashmiri Pandits have gone back or are willing to go back in a situation as tense as it is today. And if the Pandits, the original residents, are not going back, what will I and Prasad do there? I feel so sorry for the Pandits who have been driven out of their homes. This is extremely sad, condemnable in the strongest words and unfortunate. Chetan suggested me to think of the Hindus and I do acknowledge their misery and I think we should think of ways of bringing them close to their homes. The present move is just doing that but, the way I see it, unless we have a peaceful Kashmir, the ghar vapasi for the Pandits will be a remote possibility.

Obviously, the present move caters to the majoritarian, Hindu voters and Amogh pointed that very rightly. The move is without an iota of doubt going to help them in Maharashtra. Patlya had a valid point that elections happen so occasionally that doing anything can be viewed as a ‘political’ move and that you have to do something at some point to solve the issue. The BJP are master stroke players when it comes to these things (like defecting MLAs in Goa, Karnataka, bringing in Presidents rule where required, going to bed with anyone that may help them to be in power, etc) and I always hope that their opposition can learn things from them to build something constructive. Patlya, BJP is very cunning, it doesn’t do anything without thinking of its application in electoral politics. Demonitisation (UP elections), Former PM Manmohan is meeting Pakistan Prime minister and eating Biryani! (I think it was Gujrat or Rajasthan, not sure), the apolitical interviews with Akshay Kumar, the TV apps, Pulwama attacks and hence, majboot sarkaar – before 2019 elections (they haven’t yet explained the intelligence failure by the way, neither the goofups relating to Rafale, but all that is ok as they are serving the nation). I would not say that they are doing the current move keeping in mind Maharashtra, but the benefit they are going to accrue is palpable from the responses we got on Whatsapp. 

Then, Nikhil gave a twisted argument is favour of the move saying every Indian should read article 370, its history. Yes, I agree on that front but the argument cannot be used to support a move in action. Let me explain. Does a couple make a baby and then, deliberate on it? If you are an Investment banker, do you first invest and then, think of different possibilities available to you and tell the stake holders, now that I have invested your money, let’s read in detail of the options that were available to us. The deliberations part should come much before a move is implemented, something that is missing again. And, it is for this reason that we need area experts, defense analysts, civil society participants to discuss and take a line of action. 

Chetan says it’s very easy to sit and talk like intellectuals. Had it not been for you, dear Chetan, I would have been offended. But let me ask you, what do you mean when you say ‘sit and talk’? Is it a kind of translation from Marathi which suggests (lok nusti charcha kartat, wayfal badbad aste..) that intellectuals have nothing else to do? Forget intellectuals, that’s too big a word. But, isn’t it our primary duty as a citizen to check the moves of our chosen leaders, ask them what they are doing and why? Or does citizenship comes only once in 5 years when we vote our favorite party and put our pictures on FB? Nikhil did answer this by saying we should question the motives of our leaders. But, is that even possible today? A letter written by film makers for an appeal to end hate crimes is shot with a sedition case! Isn’t this funny? A dark comedy is in place…