Scan barcode
A review by andyc_elsby232
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood by Quentin Tarantino
3.0
It makes room for a lot of things I wish the film's story contained, and it is during these moments Tarantino's promise as a novelist dazzles. Needless to say, there's lots to enjoy--even sometimes love--in these 400 pages.
But...
It is most interesting to read this and compare what the film actually did with more literary grace: think the entire scene where Cliff is visiting Spahn Ranch, and the anxiety that awful house fills in your gut. We look around in it, feel the oppression, the suggestion that this is a very bad place where even worse things are happening. But in the book, Cliff has the dialogue with Squeaky (Fanning's character), then proceeds to have his dialogue with George (Dern's), and boom, we leave.
It is during times like this that the book feels... Unnecessary? I respect Tarantino's constant subversion of storytelling expectations, and the way he gives the middle-finger to 3-act-structure purists by revealing what we thought would be the ending in the first 100 pages (a swerve I dug), but having read some of his screenplays, I wonder just how much of this was written in caffeinated overdrive and sent out immediately after. There's an astonishing level of worldbuilding even in the screenplays of his weakest films, like Django Unchained. For all the old-Hollyweird lore and fetishization in OUATIH: The Novel, little of that goes into fleshing out environments or making any of the character interactions/extended dialogue bouts feel weighty. The most patience QT exhibits is when providing the backstory for the TV show the characters are working on, or the many lengthy tangents about topics that range from the peripherally related to... just... not at all.
Tarantino is universally acclaimed, even by haters, for the punch of his dialogue, but a lot of the reward of those interactions is when you take into account most American screenwriters can't write dialogue for shit; when you see somebody actually trying to leave a mark, they tend to stick in the memory as being better than they actually are. Novelists have always been the underdogs of giving their characters interesting shit to say; some spend years on making every line to leave their mouths worth listening to. So it's oddly gratifying to see Tarantino unintentionally humble himself by failing to have much of these (a. refurbished or b. newly created) exchanges between characters come across as interestingly as they did in the film.
Again, this is affordable, which takes some of the sting from the moments that feel uncooked. Even at 3 stars I'll probably keep it in my personal collection just because I have such an appreciation for the film and the guy's movies in general.
But...
It is most interesting to read this and compare what the film actually did with more literary grace: think the entire scene where Cliff is visiting Spahn Ranch, and the anxiety that awful house fills in your gut. We look around in it, feel the oppression, the suggestion that this is a very bad place where even worse things are happening. But in the book, Cliff has the dialogue with Squeaky (Fanning's character), then proceeds to have his dialogue with George (Dern's), and boom, we leave.
It is during times like this that the book feels... Unnecessary? I respect Tarantino's constant subversion of storytelling expectations, and the way he gives the middle-finger to 3-act-structure purists by revealing what we thought would be the ending in the first 100 pages (a swerve I dug), but having read some of his screenplays, I wonder just how much of this was written in caffeinated overdrive and sent out immediately after. There's an astonishing level of worldbuilding even in the screenplays of his weakest films, like Django Unchained. For all the old-Hollyweird lore and fetishization in OUATIH: The Novel, little of that goes into fleshing out environments or making any of the character interactions/extended dialogue bouts feel weighty. The most patience QT exhibits is when providing the backstory for the TV show the characters are working on, or the many lengthy tangents about topics that range from the peripherally related to... just... not at all.
Tarantino is universally acclaimed, even by haters, for the punch of his dialogue, but a lot of the reward of those interactions is when you take into account most American screenwriters can't write dialogue for shit; when you see somebody actually trying to leave a mark, they tend to stick in the memory as being better than they actually are. Novelists have always been the underdogs of giving their characters interesting shit to say; some spend years on making every line to leave their mouths worth listening to. So it's oddly gratifying to see Tarantino unintentionally humble himself by failing to have much of these (a. refurbished or b. newly created) exchanges between characters come across as interestingly as they did in the film.
Again, this is affordable, which takes some of the sting from the moments that feel uncooked. Even at 3 stars I'll probably keep it in my personal collection just because I have such an appreciation for the film and the guy's movies in general.