I have held off on writing about Once Upon A Time… in Hollywood for some time now, and I attribute that to the complexity of its story. I struggled for a long while trying to understand what message director Quentin Tarantino was trying to convey in his ninth film. I have always loved the movie; it creates a vivid portrayal of the California lifestyle and the aura around Hollywood, cinema, and celebrities; however, the film’s purpose never made itself directly apparent to me until very recently. Naturally, as the film is one of my favorites of all time, I feel it necessary to delve deep into the picture, what it means, and its relationship to the Hollywood of today. ​

​For those who haven’t seen it, Once Upon A Time… in Hollywood focuses on Rick Dalton, a washed-up television actor from the fifties who needs to come to terms with growing old and moving out of the spotlight. However, he still has big hopes of one day following in the shoes of actors such as Steve McQueen and becoming a leading man in Hollywood movies. While this never happens, he becomes a big star in Italian Spaghetti Westerns and comes to terms with his situation. Dalton is accompanied by his stunt double Cliff Booth and juxtaposed against a dramatized version of late actress Sharon Tate in the year leading up to her death. The film’s climax connects these threads bringing all characters together and rewriting history, providing a fairytale ending in which actress Sharon Tate is never killed in the Manson Family murders. 

​Once Upon A Time... in Hollywood, believe it or not, can be seen as a cautionary tale for today's cinematic landscape. The film takes a deep exploration of change in the film industry, whether it be Rick Dalton's career change from once famous tv actor to spaghetti western star, the change from Hollywood's golden age, or even Tarantino's own changing of historical events in the film's plot. As a central theme in the movie, naturally, parallels can be drawn to today. As Streaming Services rise in popularity and threaten the prominence of film stock and the theatrical experience, Tarantino warns us against moving away from traditional cinema. In multiple interviews, including interviews with Robert Rodriguez and at the Cannes film festival, Tarantino calls digital film and projection the death of movies as he knows it. He explores the introduction of digital projection and streaming through metaphor in his film, comparing it against similar movements in the late sixties, such as the end of Hollywood's golden age as was signified by the murder of Sharon Tate. Establishing a connection between the end of Hollywood's Golden age, also known as the era when studios ruled supreme, and the start of a new generation of streaming and home projection is essential as it signifies Tarantino's opinion regarding today's state of affairs. By keeping Sharon Tate alive and therefore removing the marker which indicated the end of Hollywood's golden age, Tarantino advocates in the very structure of his story that he would prefer we steer away from the age of digital cinema and streaming. However, other elements of the film's narrative may suggest Tarantino's coming to terms with the unfolding events of today.

​Vital to the film's central messaging is the use of elaborate production design, cinematography, and soundtrack, which are used strategically and extensively to create a romanticized view of the Hollywood landscape at the time the film takes place. In fact, Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is often described as Tarantino's love letter to Los Angeles, Hollywood, and movies. Therefore, all elements of the film's production needed to enhance the feeling of the 1960s as well as evoke the same feelings as films made in that era. Cinematographer Robert Richardson accomplished this effect in several ways. Firstly, the film was shot on a variety of formats. Traditional, color 35mm negative stock was used for the majority of the picture; however, the use of 16mm stock was used for sequences of the film's fictional television shows as this is what these shows were shot on at the time; the use of 8mm film is implemented too during specific home video portions. Robert Richardson's traditional lighting style also serviced the film. His style is signified by the use of strong edge lighting, which can add an angelic glow to actors and therefore further romanticizes the settings and characters of the film. Finally, in an interview with ASC magazine, the film's colorist, Yvan Lucas, he reveals how the film negative was processed to finish the movie's iconic look. He mentions that while the idea was to stay as close to the films negative stock as possible, the use of the Kodak 2383 print stock was able to further separate colors into their primary channels, therefore, leading to enhanced saturation and a look that is reminiscent of the style present in films in the late sixties.
Similarly, the films Production Design and Soundtrack are used to enhance the film's realism and mise-en-scene. Production Designer Barbara Ling faced challenges involving redecorating Hollywood Boulevard to be identical to 1969, the year the film takes place, and the meticulous recreation of Spahn Movie Ranch in Chatsworth. This attention to detail is translated to Tarantino's soundtrack, which used songs from the time period and a recreation of the LA KHJ radio station from 1960s Los Angeles.

​Another element that enhances the film's message is how Tarantino writes his characters. Tarantino is known for a highly distinctive style of dialogue and structuring. It is why he has two academy awards for best original screenplay; therefore, at this point in his career, having established his style, Tarantino was able to use it, or rather the lack of it, to enhance characterization and messaging in the film. In several interviews about the film, Tarantino explains that Margo Robbie lacks so many lines because he explicitly wanted to make her feel real rather than a Tarantino Character and juxtapose that against his traditional style, which was used for other characters in the film. This strategy accomplishes making Tate not necessarily feel like a character central to the story's plot, but one that is an angelic string thematically tying the picture together. As a Hollywood celebrity who goes about a typical day living in Los Angeles, her presentation translates to the audience Tarantino's own romanticized view of the time period. As in real life, her death was directly tied to the end of Hollywood's golden age; in the film, her survival is tied to its longevity. Her flattering look is not only literally how Tarantino wants us to view her, but too, is symbolically how he wants us to see film and the theatrical experience.

​Looking at the cinematic elements in Once Upon A Time in Hollywood provides a strong argument against the transition into the modern streaming age; however, there also happens to be suggestions that Tarantino is coming to terms with the changing landscape of today’s Hollywood. While it is true, that symbolically, Once Upon A Time in Hollywood suggests that we should stick with the ways of the past, there are elements of the films narrative that recommend otherwise. Once again, the film follows struggling actor Rick Dalton. It is early in the film’s runtime that Dalton is offered a career transition into spaghetti westerns; however, he refuses adamantly. It is later that he changes his mind and comes to terms with his situation. Allow us to compare this against Tarantino’s career and interests. He is a director who openly admires exploitation cinema and the spaghetti western genre; he is also a director who rose from the ashes of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Therefore, it would make no sense for Tarantino to advocate explicitly against the change that took place in the late sixties, as his success is directly attributed to it. I believe that the message, while being a love letter to old Hollywood, is also a welcoming of the next stage of cinema. Time and time again, Tarantino has said he will only make 10 films, Once Upon A Time in Hollywood being his ninth. He is, therefore, leaving the world of making movies soon and leaving his spot to be filmed by new young voices and filmmakers who too will be awarded opportunities as a result of streaming services. The film, while being a goodbye to old ways, is also a welcoming of new ones. As Brad Pitt said in the same ASC Magazine article mentioned before, “[The Film] really comes down to acceptance — acceptance of your place, your life, your surroundings, your challenges, your troubles.

B, Benjamin. “Back in Time: Making Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood.” American Cinematographer, The American Society of Cinematographers, 14 Apr. 2021, ascmag.com/articles/back-in-time-making-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood.
​
“Quentin Tarantino Talks about the Death of Cinema as He Knows It, and His Forthcoming Project.” YouTube, Associated Press, 3 Aug. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZyjBhqIhhE.

Utichi, Joe. “Quentin Tarantino Digs Deep On 'Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood' As He Fears ‘Dark Night Of The Soul’ For Filmmakers: Q&A.” Deadline, Deadline, 28 Jan. 2020, deadline.com/2019/12/quentin-tarantino-interview-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-indie-filmmaking-1202809425/. 

It is not often that a movie as timeless and masterful as Paul Thomas Anderson's 2007 film There Will Be Blood is released. Frequently, as audiences, we are relegated to watch mindless cash-grabs and want-to-be arthouse cinema. Of course, every year comes with a good handful of outstanding films, some years more than others; however, There Will Be Blood stands above the rest; it is a film that we can expect once in a decade. It is a film that focuses so deeply on the simple nuances of its structure and narrative development as well as the technical mastery it employs that it can't help but be entertaining, cinematic, and important. There Will Be Blood is an example of what meaningful, entertaining cinema is. ​

There Will Be Blood by writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson is a perfect example of what a well-thought-out script can become when paired with the right creative eye and technical understanding. No element of There Will Be Blood could have been better; it is exciting and cinematic while remaining cautious and important. The themes the film explores are as old as time and will continue to remain relevant moving forward. Anderson's approach to the material allows for a movie that is both timeless and masterful in the way in which it presents themes and messages, asking the audience to think and to walk away with something they did not enter knowing. There Will Be Blood: ​10/10. ​

George A. Romero is no stranger to inclusion and diversity in his films; his first two films of the Living Dead series starred black men, while his third, Day of the Dead, was lead by a strong female. His portrayal of minority groups in the picture served to normalize people of color's inclusion in leading roles whether he meant it to or not. In an article by the Washington Post, it is recounted how racism by no means was ended and in some ways may have been heightened by the multiple Civil Rights acts of the sixties; therefore, the film's commentary on continuing racial tensions in America, even after the civil rights act, was relevant and is still relevant to this day. Looking back at Romero's taxi ride in 1968, when he heard the news of Dr. King's passing and for the first time thought of the racial implications his film would have, we can begin to see how actively fighting racist stereotypes and breaking norms and standards can lead to great success as seen by the strides taken by African American actors in leading roles as well as the expansion of the horror genre after the release of Night of the Living Dead. ​

Kendi, Ibram X. “Analysis | The Civil Rights Act Was a Victory against Racism. But Racists Also Won.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 1 Apr. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/07/02/the-civil-rights-act-was-a-victory-against-racism-but-racists-also-won/.

​Punch, David A. “Night of the Living Dead: Horrors of Reality Manifested in the Flesh.” Medium, Medium, 2 Oct. 2018, medium.com/@DavidA.Punch/night-of-the-living-dead-horrors-of-reality-manifested-in-the-flesh-46722bb15e8a. 

David Fincher's 2014 film Gone Girl is the definition of perfect filmmaking and a testament to how far cinema can go to tell exciting and compelling stories. The film stars Ben Affleck as Nick Dunne and Rosamund Pike as his psychopathic wife, Amy. Gone Girl follows Nick's discovery of his wife's disappearance on their fifth wedding anniversary as-well-as the ensuing media scandal and police investigation. As the story progresses, we learn that Amy has framed Nick for her murder, leaving him to be the prime suspect of both the media and the police. At this point in the film, we get what may be David Fincher's most masterful montage to date in the form of Rosamund Pike's Cool Girl monologue. In this sequence, Fincher explores the exact lengths to which Amy goes to frame her husband for her disappearance. At this point in the film, we see Fincher form what may be one of cinema's scariest villains of all time.
Gone Girl is a roller coaster from beginning to end with constant twists and turns as-well-as compelling characters and brilliant performances from the likes of Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike. What is truly remarkable about the picture is just how much it shouldn't work. Nobody in this film is likable, save for maybe Nick's sister. However, it is our innate understanding of right and wrong that Fincher toys with; while Nick may not be a fantastic person, it is an obvious fact that he shouldn't go to jail for the disappearance of his wife. This gives us, as an audience, an unlikely protagonist to be rooting for. 
This coupled with masterful visual storytelling, take, for example, the moments of setup-payoff utilized in the Cool Girl monologue, is what makes Gone Girl not only an emotional roller coaster but also an example of perfect filmmaking. Amy's villain creates a terrifying atmosphere and makes Gone Girl one of the scariest films of the 21st century for one key reason: everything that happens in the movie is something that could happen to you.

Gone Girl: ★★★★★

Here is what I notice looking at these independent reviews, and granted, I wrote both of them; however, I did base my writing off research into the audiences of both GQ and Cosmopolitan, my primary source being an article from Penn State. The GQ article exhibits a strong focus on the film's twists and turns and ups and downs, while the Cosmopolitan article exhibits a stronger focus on the film's message and exploration of the male gaze. I also notice that the male article assumes that all audiences will side with Nick when that is objectively not the case. It is this ignorance that I believe is the underlying commentary of Gone Girl. A man will never truly understand what it is like to be a woman who grows up in today's American society simply because they have never been subjected to the male gaze on the same level as a woman and therefore cannot relate to the societal pressure for women to please men in society. What makes me truly love this movie is that its message is not derived from viewing the film but from the subsequent conversations surrounding it. I would never have come to the conclusion I have and the more profound understanding of what the film is saying about being a woman in this country without first talking to my female friends. It highlights the comfort that men are able to feel, unaware of what women put up with, whether it is forms of sexual assault, societal pressure to please men, or simply not being as respected as their male counterparts. ​

Gone Girl: ★★★★★

As I look back over the history of film, I become increasingly grateful that as an aspiring filmmaker, I grew up in the 2010s. Primarily, this is because the last decade has been amazing for movies. I am so fortunate to have grown up watching masters such as David Fincher, Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Christopher Nolan make some of the best movies of their careers while also witnessing the aspiring careers of many new directors such as The Safdie Brothers, Robert Eggers, and Greta Gerwig. However, of the last decade, 2019 has stood out as the year most saturated with incredible movies. Of those movies, my favorite has to be Ari Aster's Swedish folklore-inspired horror film Midsommar. ​
I have noticed, however, that a majority of people walk away from this movie, both confused and disappointed, most often citing "lack of a point" as the reason they disliked the movie. These comments are disheartening to me. Midsommar is a confusing film; however, it does not lack substance; in fact, the film is quite possibly one of the best representations of trauma and manipulation I have ever seen; only rivaled by Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master. ​

Let's start with the most fundamental aspect of my argument: why? Why did I watch the movie? What is the point? As many viewers may notice upon initial viewing, Midsommar is the exaggerated representation of a break-up, exploring the contrast in Dani's want to stay with Christian and juxtaposing it against her need to leave him. We explore how Christian handles their relationship in the wake of a traumatic event. We see Dani's struggle as she stretches herself thin for Christians comfort. We ultimately see her decision: to leave him, burning him in a raging fire to signify her complete removal from their relationship. 
However, on a deeper level, the film is about manipulation. Of course, this naturally presents itself in Dani and Christian's relationship; however, more notably throughout the film, we see manipulation manifested through the Hårga's indoctrination of Dani. Elements of indoctrination and manipulation can only be observed after a second viewing. We start to see signs that the group was only brought to Sweden for sacrificial purposes or that Dani becoming the Hårga's Mayqueen may not have been such a coincidence.
And this is what leads me to the point of Midsommar. The film is about caution; it is examining our susceptibility to dangerous situations in times of grief. The Hårga's could even be symbolic of a new, more toxic, relationship for Dani. The film warns us to be careful, especially when we are emotionally vulnerable. ​

And this is where I explain why Midsommar is not only one of the best movies of 2019 but also one of the best films of all time. Many people could write Midsommar; however, bringing it to screen takes an absolute mastery of all aspects of cinema. To relay its message correctly, the film is tasked with bringing the audience into Dani's shoes as much as possible; our experience visiting the Hårga's for the first time should mirror Dani's. Cinematic elements are used to emphasize the beauty of Hårga and therefore show us, first hand, the danger posed when someone unsuspecting comes into contact with a manipulative person and/or community. ​

Midsommar, by Ari Aster, warns its audience of falling victim to toxicity in times of grief. He uses many traditional aspects of cinema in new and innovative ways to further convey his story's emotion and emphasize the message of the film. It is through the masterful telling of a fundamentally simple story that I see Midsommar as one of the best films of all time. It is a story that would not work in any other medium. It is a story that is so simple that to be compelling, it needed to be made into the perfect film.