On Once Upon a Time In Hollywood's Messed-Up Ending...

Once Upon a Time In Hollywood’s an unusual film in Quentin Tarantino’s filmography. Despite being directed by someone known for excessive violence, foot fetishism, long stretches of dialogue and f-bombs, it’s surprisingly restrained. The violence is almost non-existent, the foot fetishism downplayed, the dialogue minimal and the f-bombs sparse. It’s mostly tame and ambience-heavy, fooling you into thinking he might not have even directed it. The exception is the end-scene, where Tarantino, like a man in a chastity belt for three weeks, lets loose and shows his true colours. And the end-result’s really something.

(By the way, spoilers.)

The scene begins with four hippie-turned-assassins parking their car outside the mansion of Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski. After a brief altercation with Rick Dalton, the four drive to a nearby corner and plan their attack. They decide to go after Dalton instead, as murdering a TV celebrity would be more interesting. When one of them gets cold feet and escapes with the car, the four three of them head to Dalton’s house and stumble upon Dalton’s stunt-double, Cliff Booth, Dalton’s half-asleep wife and Booth’s dog. What follows is one of the bloodiest and most-excessive moments in a Tarantino movie, which says a lot considering his filmography.

When I first saw this scene, I was shocked. I wasn’t expecting it to go this way. I was vaguely-aware of the real-life story of Sharon Tate, so seeing a curveball like this was surprising. It didn’t help that everything to that point had been building to her death, even including a clock and a narrator who was setting the stage for what’d unfold. Ignoring how brutal the scene was, it made me feel like I’d walked into the wrong screening, a feeling that lingered during my walk home.

I was also, at least initially, offended. True, Inglourious Basterds offended me far more, as it vilified its heroes and victimized its villains, but this was an unusual kind of offence. I wasn’t offended because Tarantino let loose and resorted to violence, as he’s done that many times. Rather, I was offended because the movie centres its biggest rug pull around subverting one of Hollywood’s greatest tragedies. Given the ripple-effect of Sharon Tate’s actual murder, one that’d be felt for years, it felt like a middle finger to her life.

I know that this isn’t an original sentiment; after all, Once Upon a Time In Hollywood has garnered lots of criticism over its ending, as well as how it characterized the late-Bruce Lee. But having had time to reflect on how utterly-bizarre this scene is, I still wonder if it was in good taste…even if Tate’s sister gave it her blessing. I have several questions about how plausible it is, including how a man on an acid trip could beat three would-be murders to death, but that’s irrelevant. As is how violent their deaths are, and let’s not pretend they aren’t. No, my issue goes further than that.

What I want to know is why Sharon Tate wasn’t the heroine of this particular moment. For one, it’s implied early-on that she learned martial arts from Lee, as shown through a brief flashback. And two, considering this was meant as a “reclaiming a narrative” moment, wouldn’t it make sense for her to have been present? Perhaps, even in her pregnant state, get a few licks in, maybe finish one of them off herself? I’m not sure if there was a way to make this functional, but not having her there feels like a wasted opportunity.

The deaths of these assassins also feel like overkill. One of them has her head repeatedly slammed against sharp objects until she dies, while another is mauled by Booth’s dog before being finished off with Dalton’s flamethrower. The third…I don’t even remember how he dies, as I was so taken aback by the scene. I, honestly, felt less like Booth and more like Dalton’s wife, getting a single punch in before cowering in fear. The entire ordeal was crazy, and the movie didn’t want me to forget that.

It also seems strange that the film used Sharon Tate as a reframing for an alternate history. Call me a purist, but I’m more interested in a Tarantino film delving into that than what we got. I guess alternative history revenge flicks are his MO now, since three of his last four movies have been that, but I honestly think the movie should’ve committed to its premise, even showing how Sharon Tate died. It wouldn’t have been “crowd-pleasing”, but it’d have been a lot more honest.

It’d also be interesting to see Tarantino delve into new territory, at least for him. I’d be game for a Tarantino-directed police procedural/courtroom drama centred around a famous celebrity death. Especially one as restrained as Once Upon a Time In Hollywood is for the majority of its runtime. I’d be curious to see him handle witness examination, or even a judge and jury sentencing. It may not be within his wheelhouse, but I’ve seen stranger from other directors. And it’s not like it wouldn’t be well-received.

Perhaps I’m overthinking this. Perhaps it’s too much speculation for Quentin Tarantino. And maybe my suggestions would ruin the film, who knows? But I wonder if this was the correct approach. Then again, considering that a Charles Manson biopic’s in the works…