About the pulp fiction movie

used the same gimmick as Inglorious Basterds: having fictional characters in the story change the actual outcome of history in a kind of revenge fantasy against history's bad guys.

used the same gimmick as Inglorious Basterds: having fictional characters in the story change the actual outcome of history in a kind of revenge fantasy against history's bad guys.

I think the revisionist history in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has different thematic purposes than that which is in Inglourious Basterds, personally. While both endings are over-the-top escapist fantasies that the real world doesn't allow you to experience, the historical liberties in this film also served to provide a conclusion for Dalton's character arc. If Tate had been murdered, Dalton's future career would've been left uncertain and he might not have ever become a successful actor, but since Tate lived and the Manson family members was killed instead, Dalton's outcome was optimistic and he had a better chance of becoming a famous actor. Thematically wise, I think Dalton's character arc is at the forefront of the ending and, without the historical revisionism, it wouldn't have worked. In my opinion, the ending to this film is one of the best things Tarantino has ever done, topping the ending to Inglourious Basterds, even.

I think the revisionist history in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has different thematic purposes than that which is in Inglourious Basterds, personally. While both endings are over-the-top escapist fantasies that the real world doesn't allow you to experience, the historical liberties in this film also served to provide a conclusion for Dalton's character arc. If Tate had been murdered, Dalton's future career would've been left uncertain and he might not have ever become a successful actor, but since Tate lived and the Manson family members was killed instead, Dalton's outcome was optimistic and he had a better chance of becoming a famous actor. Thematically wise, I think Dalton's character arc is at the forefront of the ending and, without the historical revisionism, it wouldn't have worked. In my opinion, the ending to this film is one of the best things Tarantino has ever done, topping the ending to Inglourious Basterds, even.

a fictional Nazi get a very mild "comeuppance" after we've already seen him help murder innocent Jewish people for a living earlier, then Pitt says the line about this being his masterpiece before the "Written And Directed By" credit, which feels like Tarantino just sucking himself off on screen about how awesome he thought his movie was (thank God he didn't end up actually playing Aldo himself like he originally planned). In the meantime, Shoshanna, the one who was actually victimized directly by Landa himself, and the most sympathetic character in the entire film by far as a result, gets suddenly killed off without ever obtaining vengeance against the man who murdered her family, or even just seeing the rest of her master plan fulfilled, which was a really frustruating decision on Tarantino's part. I mean, I get that he likes to subvert our expectations as viewers, but killing her off felt like nothing but random, empty subversion just for the sake of it, if you ask me, so, while both films dabble in alternative history, the way that Hollywood's final note struck a newfound feeling of hope with Tate welcoming the has-been onto her property (as well as into the personal orbit of her star, which is now no longer tragically cut short in the film's reality) was the most positive and humanist ending that Tarantino has made in at least a decade-and-a-half, and a welcome change from the misanthropy he often indulges in to a fault, if you ask me.

a fictional Nazi get a very mild "comeuppance" after we've already seen him help murder innocent Jewish people for a living earlier, then Pitt says the line about this being his masterpiece before the "Written And Directed By" credit, which feels like Tarantino just sucking himself off on screen about how awesome he thought his movie was (thank God he didn't end up actually playing Aldo himself like he originally planned). In the meantime, Shoshanna, the one who was actually victimized directly by Landa himself, and the most sympathetic character in the entire film by far as a result, gets suddenly killed off without ever obtaining vengeance against the man who murdered her family, or even just seeing the rest of her master plan fulfilled, which was a really frustruating decision on Tarantino's part. I mean, I get that he likes to subvert our expectations as viewers, but killing her off felt like nothing but random, empty subversion just for the sake of it, if you ask me, so, while both films dabble in alternative history, the way that Hollywood's final note struck a newfound feeling of hope with Tate welcoming the has-been onto her property (as well as into the personal orbit of her star, which is now no longer tragically cut short in the film's reality) was the most positive and humanist ending that Tarantino has made in at least a decade-and-a-half, and a welcome change from the misanthropy he often indulges in to a fault, if you ask me.

I don't know if I'd consider having a swastika carved into one's forehead with a Bowie knife to be a "very mild comeuppance", especially since it's not only painful and disfiguring but also means that Landa can never truly get to enjoy his cushy deal with the Americans due to being marked as a Nazi for life (besides, if Aldo's not allowed to kill Landa at all due to the deal then this is the only way that Landa ends up seeing any justice at all). As for Shoshanna, I felt tragedy in her death, especially when what gets her killed isn't random happenstance, but the fact that she shoots Zoller - the first time she's ever shot or killed anyone - and then is immediately overcome with regret, much as Zoller himself claimed to be at having had to shoot hundreds of soldiers. As a result, she takes the slightest amount of pity on the Nazi who has been annoying her with his lovesick advances for the whole movie - and he instantly shoots her back. That Shoshanna dies for opting to show even a hint of mercy to a Nazi even in the middle of her plan to burn hundreds of them to death is dramatic irony that is contrasted with the Basterds managing to win by never even trying to share even ground with the Nazis - Landa wants to be an ingenious chessmaster of a character (as demonstrated by his introduction with the swapping between languages) and tries to treat Aldo as a worthy opponent who respects the rules just as he does, but Aldo isn't having a bar of it and gets his revenge as soon as he is turned loose. Brutal might-makes-right messaging, perhaps, but then again these are Nazis we're talking about.

Conversely, I've seen it argued that, if Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was going to go to the trouble of creating an alternate timeline where the Manson family members who originally murdered Sharon Tate end up being the ones who get murdered instead, then Tarantino might as well have gone the whole hog and taken down Manson himself (especially since he shows up in the film anyway). As it stands, the film ends with Manson still presumably on the loose with however many other family members he has left - that's like if Basterds played out exactly the same but without Hitler attending the movie premiere at the end. A similar case could be made for Roman Polanski, though the film does take place before he committed the crimes that led him to flee the country so the presumption there is that he...might not have become a criminal in this alternate timeline? Even then, Steve McQueen has a line that implies Polanski and Tate will inevitably break up, but that just feels like Tarantino hedging his bets. The ending as is still works fine, but if the implication is that Rick Dalton meeting Tate leads to him collaborating with Polanski and having his career revived by one of the most controversial living filmmakers as a result, then that throws its own shadow over the "happy" ending (but then again that arguably feeds into the idea of it being a bittersweet ending anyway...and so on and so forth).

I don't know if I'd consider having a swastika carved into one's forehead with a Bowie knife to be a "very mild comeuppance", especially since it's not only painful and disfiguring but also means that Landa can never truly get to enjoy his cushy deal with the Americans due to being marked as a Nazi for life (besides, if Aldo's not allowed to kill Landa at all due to the deal then this is the only way that Landa ends up seeing any justice at all). As for Shoshanna, I felt tragedy in her death, especially when what gets her killed isn't random happenstance, but the fact that she shoots Zoller - the first time she's ever shot or killed anyone - and then is immediately overcome with regret, much as Zoller himself claimed to be at having had to shoot hundreds of soldiers. As a result, she takes the slightest amount of pity on the Nazi who has been annoying her with his lovesick advances for the whole movie - and he instantly shoots her back. That Shoshanna dies for opting to show even a hint of mercy to a Nazi even in the middle of her plan to burn hundreds of them to death is dramatic irony that is contrasted with the Basterds managing to win by never even trying to share even ground with the Nazis - Landa wants to be an ingenious chessmaster of a character (as demonstrated by his introduction with the swapping between languages) and tries to treat Aldo as a worthy opponent who respects the rules just as he does, but Aldo isn't having a bar of it and gets his revenge as soon as he is turned loose. Brutal might-makes-right messaging, perhaps, but then again these are Nazis we're talking about.

Conversely, I've seen it argued that, if Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was going to go to the trouble of creating an alternate timeline where the Manson family members who originally murdered Sharon Tate end up being the ones who get murdered instead, then Tarantino might as well have gone the whole hog and taken down Manson himself (especially since he shows up in the film anyway). As it stands, the film ends with Manson still presumably on the loose with however many other family members he has left - that's like if Basterds played out exactly the same but without Hitler attending the movie premiere at the end. A similar case could be made for Roman Polanski, though the film does take place before he committed the crimes that led him to flee the country so the presumption there is that he...might not have become a criminal in this alternate timeline? Even then, Steve McQueen has a line that implies Polanski and Tate will inevitably break up, but that just feels like Tarantino hedging his bets. The ending as is still works fine, but if the implication is that Rick Dalton meeting Tate leads to him collaborating with Polanski and having his career revived by one of the most controversial living filmmakers as a result, then that throws its own shadow over the "happy" ending (but then again that arguably feeds into the idea of it being a bittersweet ending anyway...and so on and so forth).