What do you think?
Rate this book
袨写薪芯谐芯 褉邪蟹褍 胁 袚芯谢谢褨胁褍写褨
袥褞斜芯胁薪懈泄 谢懈褋褌 袚芯谢谢褨胁褍写褍 褕褨褋褌写械褋褟褌懈褏, 谐谢懈斜芯泻械 蟹邪薪褍褉械薪薪褟 褍 泻褨薪械屑邪褌芯谐褉邪褎褨褔薪懈泄 褋胁褨褌 泄芯谐芯 蟹芯谢芯褌芯褩 写芯斜懈, 胁懈薪邪褏褨写谢懈胁懈泄 谐褍屑芯褉 鈥� 褍褋械 褑械 胁 锌械褉褕芯屑褍 褉芯屑邪薪褨 袣胁械薪褌褨薪邪 孝邪褉邪薪褌褨薪芯, 写械 胁褨薪, 薪械 芯斜屑械卸械薪懈泄 褉邪屑泻邪屑懈 褏褉芯薪芯屑械褌褉邪卸褍, 褉芯蟹谐芯褉褌邪褦 械锌褨褔薪械 锌芯谢芯褌薪芯 褋芯薪褟褔薪懈褏 褋锌芯谐邪写褨胁 褋胁芯谐芯 写懈褌懈薪褋褌胁邪.
袟薪邪泄芯屑褨 谐谢褟写邪褔邪屑 芯写薪芯泄屑械薪薪芯谐芯 褎褨谢褜屑褍 褋械褉褨邪谢褜薪懈泄 邪泻褌芯褉 袪褨泻 袛芯谢褌芯薪 褌邪 泄芯谐芯 写褍斜谢械褉 (谐械褉芯泄 胁褨泄薪懈 褔懈 胁斜懈胁褑褟?) 袣谢褨褎 袘褍褌 胁锌懈褋邪薪褨 褍 写斜邪泄谢懈胁芯 胁褨写褌胁芯褉械薪懈泄 褋褌褉芯颅泻邪褌懈泄 锌械泄蟹邪卸 袥芯褋-袗薪写卸械谢械褋邪 1969 褉芯泻褍, 写械 褩褏薪褨 褋褍褋褨写懈 鈥� 斜谢懈褋泻褍褔懈泄 袪芯屑邪薪 袩芯谢邪薪褋泻褨 泄 泻褉邪褋褍薪褟 楔械褉芯薪 孝械泄褌, 写械 褌褉懈胁芯卸薪芯褞 屑褍蟹懈褔薪芯褞 褌械屑芯褞 蟹胁褍褔懈褌褜 褨褋褌芯褉褨褟 效邪褉谢褨 袦械薪褋芯薪邪 褌邪 泄芯谐芯 芯写械褉卸懈屑懈褑褜, 写械 蟹薪褨屑邪褞褌褜褋褟 泻褍谢褜颅褌芯胁褨 褋褌褉褨褔泻懈 泄 褋械褉褨邪谢懈-芯写薪芯写械薪泻懈, 写械 屑懈屑芯斜褨卸薪芯 锌褉懈褋褍褌薪褨泄 褨 褋邪屑 邪胁褌芯褉 鈥� 褕械褋褌懈褉褨褔薪懈屑 褏谢芯锌颅褔懈泻芯屑, 写谢褟 褟泻芯谐芯 胁褨褌褔懈屑 斜械褉械 邪胁褌芯谐褉邪褎 褍 芯写薪芯谐芯 蟹 泄芯谐芯 褍谢褞斜谢械薪懈褏 邪泻褌芯褉褨胁.
袙褨写芯屑懈泄 谐谢褟写邪褔邪屑 褋褞卸械褌 褨 褎褨褉屑芯胁褨, 屑懈褌褌褦胁芯 胁锌褨蟹薪邪胁邪薪褨 写褨邪谢芯谐懈 褍 泻薪懈蟹褨 褉芯蟹颅泻褉懈胁邪褞褌褜褋褟 锌芯-薪芯胁芯屑褍, 褋褌邪褞褔懈 褎褍薪写邪屑械薪褌芯屑 屑褨褑薪芯 薪邪褋褌芯褟薪芯褩, 褋褨薪械褎褨谢褜褋泻芯 蟹邪褉褟写卸械薪芯褩 芦褉械卸懈褋械褉褋褜泻芯褩 胁械褉褋褨褩禄 褎褨谢褜屑褍, 褟泻邪 胁褨写泻褉懈胁邪褦 褔懈褌邪褔械胁褨 芦褉芯蟹褕懈褉械薪懈泄 胁褋械褋胁褨褌 袚芯谢谢褨胁褍写褍禄 胁褨写 孝邪褉邪薪褌褨薪芯.
袟薪邪泄芯屑褨 谐谢褟写邪褔邪屑 芯写薪芯泄屑械薪薪芯谐芯 褎褨谢褜屑褍 褋械褉褨邪谢褜薪懈泄 邪泻褌芯褉 袪褨泻 袛芯谢褌芯薪 褌邪 泄芯谐芯 写褍斜谢械褉 (谐械褉芯泄 胁褨泄薪懈 褔懈 胁斜懈胁褑褟?) 袣谢褨褎 袘褍褌 胁锌懈褋邪薪褨 褍 写斜邪泄谢懈胁芯 胁褨写褌胁芯褉械薪懈泄 褋褌褉芯颅泻邪褌懈泄 锌械泄蟹邪卸 袥芯褋-袗薪写卸械谢械褋邪 1969 褉芯泻褍, 写械 褩褏薪褨 褋褍褋褨写懈 鈥� 斜谢懈褋泻褍褔懈泄 袪芯屑邪薪 袩芯谢邪薪褋泻褨 泄 泻褉邪褋褍薪褟 楔械褉芯薪 孝械泄褌, 写械 褌褉懈胁芯卸薪芯褞 屑褍蟹懈褔薪芯褞 褌械屑芯褞 蟹胁褍褔懈褌褜 褨褋褌芯褉褨褟 效邪褉谢褨 袦械薪褋芯薪邪 褌邪 泄芯谐芯 芯写械褉卸懈屑懈褑褜, 写械 蟹薪褨屑邪褞褌褜褋褟 泻褍谢褜颅褌芯胁褨 褋褌褉褨褔泻懈 泄 褋械褉褨邪谢懈-芯写薪芯写械薪泻懈, 写械 屑懈屑芯斜褨卸薪芯 锌褉懈褋褍褌薪褨泄 褨 褋邪屑 邪胁褌芯褉 鈥� 褕械褋褌懈褉褨褔薪懈屑 褏谢芯锌颅褔懈泻芯屑, 写谢褟 褟泻芯谐芯 胁褨褌褔懈屑 斜械褉械 邪胁褌芯谐褉邪褎 褍 芯写薪芯谐芯 蟹 泄芯谐芯 褍谢褞斜谢械薪懈褏 邪泻褌芯褉褨胁.
袙褨写芯屑懈泄 谐谢褟写邪褔邪屑 褋褞卸械褌 褨 褎褨褉屑芯胁褨, 屑懈褌褌褦胁芯 胁锌褨蟹薪邪胁邪薪褨 写褨邪谢芯谐懈 褍 泻薪懈蟹褨 褉芯蟹颅泻褉懈胁邪褞褌褜褋褟 锌芯-薪芯胁芯屑褍, 褋褌邪褞褔懈 褎褍薪写邪屑械薪褌芯屑 屑褨褑薪芯 薪邪褋褌芯褟薪芯褩, 褋褨薪械褎褨谢褜褋泻芯 蟹邪褉褟写卸械薪芯褩 芦褉械卸懈褋械褉褋褜泻芯褩 胁械褉褋褨褩禄 褎褨谢褜屑褍, 褟泻邪 胁褨写泻褉懈胁邪褦 褔懈褌邪褔械胁褨 芦褉芯蟹褕懈褉械薪懈泄 胁褋械褋胁褨褌 袚芯谢谢褨胁褍写褍禄 胁褨写 孝邪褉邪薪褌褨薪芯.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 2021
2372 people are currently reading
21279 people want to read
About the author
Quentin Tarantino
50听books1,695听followersQuentin Jerome Tarantino is an Academy Award- and Palme d'Or-winning American film director, screenwriter and actor. He rose to fame in the early 1990s as an independent filmmaker whose films used nonlinear storylines and stylized violence. His films include Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), Jackie Brown (1997), Kill Bill (Vol. 1 2003, Vol. 2 2004), Death Proof (2007), and Inglourious Basterds (2009).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,911 reviews
July 5, 2021
Tim Riley, in association with goodreads reviews, presents:
A novelization of the Ninth film of Quentin Tarantino
In the 350th review by Tim Riley:
(The publisher is also to be commended for that cover, and the fact that the initial release is a massmarket paperback, keeping with the film novelizations from the era... it even includes advertisements for other books published around the time)
Before we discuss the book, let's discuss the film for a moment (and if you do not like digressions about film, let's cut to the chase and say right now that you're not going to like this book). Tarantino is, in my not-so-humble opinion, one of the most consistent directors. I love his films for the most part and honestly, "Once Upon a Time In Hollywood" despite being one of his lesser loved films, is actually one of my favorites from the director. I like that it's a less action oriented story and more of a personal drama. In many ways it is his most experimental because it is a character piece from a plot stand point, but overall it's more about a time and place than it even is about the plot鈥� it actually has the most potential of all of his movies into making it as a novel (except Jackie Brown鈥� because, well, it was one).
Well, we all knew Tarantino could write screenplays, but could he pull off a novel? Answer: just about. This book is very much what could have happened if you combined Elmore Leonard with Michael Crichton. It has Leonard's characterization and dialogue and Crichton's love of digressions and facts mixed in with his fiction (though instead of science, it's film history). Now this leads to the fact that in many ways, this book is a jumbled mess. To be fair, the film was as well to a certain extent. It was an extremely polished film, but frustrating with flashbacks inside flashbacks and various other tricks like that. Here we'll be in the middle of a scene and Tarantino will then lovingly give you a five page history lesson on Akira Kurosawa or the importance of I Am Curious (Yellow) in terms of cinema history.
If you did not like the cutaways in the film, you're really not going to have a good time. He has a tendency to jump to the past or even the future for part of a scene and then come back to the present. Some could even argue that he has a tendency of spoiling his own story for you if you haven't seen the film. You'll get a scene with characters in the future recounting something that is in the movie (but interestingly not in the book) and it makes for a very strange experience. Personally I'm not as averse to spoilers as some people, but I can clearly see where these aspects would frustrate people
His career as a screenwriter is also clear in how he writes. Everything is happening in the present tense as in a screenplay. While I've seen authors use this before, here it feels less stylistic and more relying on simply another style of writing.
Yep. Overall it feels like a weird and unpolished novel.
鈥�
It's also a lot of fun.
This is not going to be a book for everyone, but despite its flaws, Tarantino has crafted an interesting debut novel. While I mentioned earlier that he relies on screenwriting style, this is not just a copy of the screenplay. This is a VERY different book from the movie with several new scenes and several scenes that were in the film and not in the book The book feels more grounded in reality and also feels like a more personal story. The plot aspect really is about Rick and how he's coming to terms with his career and where it needs to head if he's continuing. It's in every scene with him, sometimes blatantly, but often quite subtlety. It's a personal journey, and while at times the book feels "plotless" it creates a wonderful character study as well as capturing a time and place.
Yes, Tarantino goes off on film digressions that stop the "action" of the story鈥� every single one of them is important. He's setting the time and place. He's showing you how Hollywood worked at the time. He's showing where it tried to evolve and where it was stuck until something pushed it forward. Each of these is a factor that explain in a way why Rick makes the decisions he does. Hollywood was undergoing big changes at the time. In the sixties it was caught in a war between old Hollywood and modern Hollywood. Should it keep westerns the family friendly clean affair of the John Wayne films of the past or go with the gritty R rated style the Italians were making? Should it reject the counterculture youth in favor of presenting the "family values" of the 50s, or should it show that families weren't always the perfect places and sometimes split up (as perfectly portrayed in how Charles Manson recruited members to his "family). There's a lot of moving parts, some of which feel pointless from a "let's get to from point A to point B" narrative鈥� all of it though feels like capturing a moment in time.
Look, this is either going to be a book you dig despite of (or because of) Tarantino's quirks or absolutely hate. I was completely all in. I loved the old Hollywood feel. I delighted in the fact that the book feels more like a Hollywood history lesson at times more than an actual novel鈥� though Tarantino is clearly having a blast mixing in blatantly false information with his facts as some of them involve how real people went on to make films with his fictional ones (including how one of them would later make a film with Quentin Tarantino). I had fun seeing aspects of our characters we didn't get in the film (Cliff has a top five Akira Kurosawa film list and that brought a smile to my face). This is a novel that, just like the movie, if really about a love of film and cinema. If you're not here for that, skip it. I won't blame anyone for not liking it, I'll admit now my score is probably generous, but that's because it hit on subjects that I too love. It was written with me as a target audience member鈥� not everyone will be. A solid 4/5 stars and a big hope that Tarantino decides to write another novel.
In honor of Cliff's list, here's my own off-topic movie tangent with my personal top 5 Kurosawa film list:
1. Seven Samurai
2. Rashomon
3. Yojimbo
4. Throne of Blood
5. High and Low
August 17, 2021
Bypassing the hardback, straight to a pulp paperback drugstore spinner rack sized edition! Yezzzz
July 1, 2021
Considering that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is my favorite film, and Quentin Tarantino is my favorite film maker, I was very very excited for this book to be released. I bought it the day it came out, started it right away鈥� and was disappointed by the end of the second chapter.
My main issue with this is the amount of information that is given, most of it being useless.
There are multiple chapters about characters within the show Lancer鈥� characters who are not real within this universe. I was confused on why this mattered, given it contributes absolutely nothing to the plot.
Also we learn the backstory to Roman Polanski鈥檚 film Rosemary鈥檚 Baby, which also gives nothing to the story. I understand Tarantino finds this interesting, but I do not, given that I read this novel for a tale of a struggling actor in the 1960鈥檚, not a collection of fun facts surrounding figures of Old Hollywood.
The novel starts with Rick Dalton having a conversation with agent Marvin Schwarz. The chapter goes on for twenty four pages, and is mainly just Rick explaining all of the films and television shows he has done, along with people he has met. Now to a certain extent, this is interesting. It gives some backstory to Rick (which is something that I was really looking forward to in this novel, and was not given), but after ten pages of references to various figures and movies from the 1960鈥檚 that most people have never even heard of, it gets a little old.
Then the second chapter happens, which I hated even worse than the first one. This chapter is almost entirely the character Cliff鈥檚 opinions on film, which I assume is just a self-insert for Tarantino himself. For about twenty pages, we have to read about foreign films from the 60鈥檚. Sorry, but if I had wanted to read about Japanese film exports, I would have found a nonfiction book about them, not a novel.
And yes, I know the movie, and by extension, this novel, is a love letter to Old Hollywood. But must I read page after page about a fictional character鈥檚 opinion on films that has absolutely nothing to do with the plot?
And on the topic of Cliff鈥檚 character鈥� it is horrible. I have seen Once Upon a Time in Hollywood many times, and the Cliff there is not the same in this novel. He is misogynistic, only caring about having sex with women. He is racist (the whole Bruce Lee scene), and homophobic (he uses the f slur three times in one page). He pursues Pussycat, even though he admits that he does not know how old she is, but believes she is under eighteen. He is a war hero, but only uses that status when it lets him get away with murder (this literally happens twice). He also fights dogs and considers becoming a pimp. And why am I supposed to like this character? Although Tarantino tries to make him a 鈥榗ool guy鈥� by giving him a backstory that portrays him as someone who is untouchable, (all I wanted was a backstory for Rick and got nothing, but we must hear about Cliff鈥檚 killing of Japanese soldiers on multiple occasions) he has pretty much no redeeming qualities, and is a far cry from the man who was in the film.
Continuing on with characters, it seemed that I was supposed to sympathize with Charles Manson. Right after a chapter which brutally accounts Cliff鈥檚 gruesome, cold blooded murder of his wife, whom he pretty much says deserved it because she was a bitch, we get a chapter about how poor, pitiful 鈥楥harlie鈥� just wants to be a rock star and is sad after he gets stood up by a representative of a recording label. I鈥檓 not sure what Tarantino鈥檚 intentions were here. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? In no universe will I ever give that man sympathy, and I鈥檓 not sure why Tarantino would even try to evoke that from his readers.
I will say, I enjoyed learning more about the Manson Family, within this universe, but not all of it. Pussycat鈥檚 story was uncomfortable. The amount of sexualization of a girl who we never learn if she is even legal or not was not something I enjoyed reading. (We do hear about her having sex with older men when she is 14, so there鈥檚 that).
On to positives.
Rick Dalton. For the most part, I really enjoyed all of the chapters which primarily featured him. His role in the film is one of my favorite characters of all time, so I was happy he was not given the Cliff Booth treatment and absolutely destroyed. I found his interactions with Trudi to be sweet and enjoyable to read.
Another positive for me is Sharon Tate, minus the fact she was, like the movie, barely in this novel. The scene, which mirrors the one in the film, where she goes to the theater to watch her own movie, was by FAR by favorite. Sharon鈥檚 inner dialogue is so charming, like she was in real life, and makes you root for her. If you 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 love her before, reading this scene will do it. (Also the chapter with her hitchhiking to LA was enjoyable, minus some creepy comments about her body)
Something I, as a fan of Sharon, did not appreciate about her was when she was treated almost like a pawn between her husband Roman and Steve McQueen. This was just a small section, not even a full page, but it stuck with me. Sleeping with her was brought up, like it was a competition between the two men. I honestly found this disgusting and disrespectful. Sharon was, and is still, more than just someone that was slept with, and I find it disturbing that it is suggested otherwise.
In conclusion, this book disappointed me. I had such high expectations, and this novel reached none of them. I struggled to finish this. Tarantino makes excellent films, and I鈥檓 sorry to say, but maybe he should just stick to what he鈥檚 good at.
I would just skip this and watch the film instead.
My main issue with this is the amount of information that is given, most of it being useless.
There are multiple chapters about characters within the show Lancer鈥� characters who are not real within this universe. I was confused on why this mattered, given it contributes absolutely nothing to the plot.
Also we learn the backstory to Roman Polanski鈥檚 film Rosemary鈥檚 Baby, which also gives nothing to the story. I understand Tarantino finds this interesting, but I do not, given that I read this novel for a tale of a struggling actor in the 1960鈥檚, not a collection of fun facts surrounding figures of Old Hollywood.
The novel starts with Rick Dalton having a conversation with agent Marvin Schwarz. The chapter goes on for twenty four pages, and is mainly just Rick explaining all of the films and television shows he has done, along with people he has met. Now to a certain extent, this is interesting. It gives some backstory to Rick (which is something that I was really looking forward to in this novel, and was not given), but after ten pages of references to various figures and movies from the 1960鈥檚 that most people have never even heard of, it gets a little old.
Then the second chapter happens, which I hated even worse than the first one. This chapter is almost entirely the character Cliff鈥檚 opinions on film, which I assume is just a self-insert for Tarantino himself. For about twenty pages, we have to read about foreign films from the 60鈥檚. Sorry, but if I had wanted to read about Japanese film exports, I would have found a nonfiction book about them, not a novel.
And yes, I know the movie, and by extension, this novel, is a love letter to Old Hollywood. But must I read page after page about a fictional character鈥檚 opinion on films that has absolutely nothing to do with the plot?
And on the topic of Cliff鈥檚 character鈥� it is horrible. I have seen Once Upon a Time in Hollywood many times, and the Cliff there is not the same in this novel. He is misogynistic, only caring about having sex with women. He is racist (the whole Bruce Lee scene), and homophobic (he uses the f slur three times in one page). He pursues Pussycat, even though he admits that he does not know how old she is, but believes she is under eighteen. He is a war hero, but only uses that status when it lets him get away with murder (this literally happens twice). He also fights dogs and considers becoming a pimp. And why am I supposed to like this character? Although Tarantino tries to make him a 鈥榗ool guy鈥� by giving him a backstory that portrays him as someone who is untouchable, (all I wanted was a backstory for Rick and got nothing, but we must hear about Cliff鈥檚 killing of Japanese soldiers on multiple occasions) he has pretty much no redeeming qualities, and is a far cry from the man who was in the film.
Continuing on with characters, it seemed that I was supposed to sympathize with Charles Manson. Right after a chapter which brutally accounts Cliff鈥檚 gruesome, cold blooded murder of his wife, whom he pretty much says deserved it because she was a bitch, we get a chapter about how poor, pitiful 鈥楥harlie鈥� just wants to be a rock star and is sad after he gets stood up by a representative of a recording label. I鈥檓 not sure what Tarantino鈥檚 intentions were here. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? In no universe will I ever give that man sympathy, and I鈥檓 not sure why Tarantino would even try to evoke that from his readers.
I will say, I enjoyed learning more about the Manson Family, within this universe, but not all of it. Pussycat鈥檚 story was uncomfortable. The amount of sexualization of a girl who we never learn if she is even legal or not was not something I enjoyed reading. (We do hear about her having sex with older men when she is 14, so there鈥檚 that).
On to positives.
Rick Dalton. For the most part, I really enjoyed all of the chapters which primarily featured him. His role in the film is one of my favorite characters of all time, so I was happy he was not given the Cliff Booth treatment and absolutely destroyed. I found his interactions with Trudi to be sweet and enjoyable to read.
Another positive for me is Sharon Tate, minus the fact she was, like the movie, barely in this novel. The scene, which mirrors the one in the film, where she goes to the theater to watch her own movie, was by FAR by favorite. Sharon鈥檚 inner dialogue is so charming, like she was in real life, and makes you root for her. If you 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 love her before, reading this scene will do it. (Also the chapter with her hitchhiking to LA was enjoyable, minus some creepy comments about her body)
Something I, as a fan of Sharon, did not appreciate about her was when she was treated almost like a pawn between her husband Roman and Steve McQueen. This was just a small section, not even a full page, but it stuck with me. Sleeping with her was brought up, like it was a competition between the two men. I honestly found this disgusting and disrespectful. Sharon was, and is still, more than just someone that was slept with, and I find it disturbing that it is suggested otherwise.
In conclusion, this book disappointed me. I had such high expectations, and this novel reached none of them. I struggled to finish this. Tarantino makes excellent films, and I鈥檓 sorry to say, but maybe he should just stick to what he鈥檚 good at.
I would just skip this and watch the film instead.
August 23, 2023
This is the part where I talk about the movie (oh yeah, also I鈥檓 going to spoil it):
I鈥檓 going to pretend I鈥檓 on Letterboxd for a minute, so please bear with me. While want to say that I鈥檓 a casual fan of Quentin Tarantino鈥檚 movies, I have seen and somewhat liked all of them, so I guess you could say I鈥檓 a fan鈥� casually. Anyway, I watched Once Upon a Time in Hollywood pretty recently and really enjoyed it! Yeah sure, the movie鈥檚 mostly just people driving around in cool cars for three hours followed by ten minutes of intense and cartoonish violence, but I had a good enough time. In fact, I actually think my favorite parts of the movie were the driving bits, and while they鈥檙e probably overlong and 鈥渦nnecessary鈥� to the plot (whatever that means), I think I鈥檓 more charitable to movies that look like actors are actually in a real place, acting opposite each other, doing a real thing (no shade to a certain other studio). Also, I watched an interview with Quentin Tarantino where he said that this movie was partially based on how he used to go on drives around Los Angeles with his step dad, so that鈥檚 a nice memory. It鈥檚 true that the film certainly has a quality about it that captures that nostalgic, dream-like feeling. And while it鈥檚 definitely no Jackie Brown, I appreciated its more low-key storyline compared to his more heightened movies. The basic story is that it鈥檚 Hollywood, 1969, and we follow a washed-up actor Rick Dalton and his stuntman Cliff Booth for two and a half days as they try to adapt to the changing times. That鈥檚 it. Oh, they also fight the Manson Family in climax. That's a thing for some reason. It鈥檚 not my favorite of his movies, but I was never bored.
Of course, That鈥檚 not to say that there weren鈥檛 some intense, glaring issues that I had with the movie. First of all, its portrayal of Bruce Lee (he鈥檚 also in this) 鈥� what the hell was that!? You鈥檙e going to sit there and tell me that ninety-seven-year-old Br*d P*tt could win against Bruce Lee in his prime? Yeah right. Get out of town! Actually, the Bruce Lee situation brings up a larger issue I had with the story in how the fictional characters are integrated and interact with the real-life figures that are featured in the movie. For example, a large part of the story focuses on Sharon Tate and the Manson Family. Now, if you鈥檝e seen Tarantino鈥檚 other movie, Inglourious Basterds, you鈥檇 probably guess the big 鈥渢wist鈥� in that history is pretty dramatically changed in his movies a lot of the times. Basically, Sharon Tate 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 die by the Manson family in this story, and instead they go to Rick Dalton鈥檚 house and then they all promptly die by the combined efforts of Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth. I know this fairy tale, 鈥渨hat if?鈥� vibe is kind of the whole point, but it felt really odd to me. Like Tarantino was basically saying 鈥渨ell, this terrible tragedy wouldn鈥檛 have happened if my super badass made-up character was there to save the day!鈥� Like鈥� okay? It also 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 help that Sharon Tate is barely in both the movie and the book, removing her as a player in a story that supposedly hinges on what 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 happen to her. The whole thing just had me like, 鈥�so~oo, what was the point of any of this?鈥� Very, very bizarre.
This is the part where I talk about the novelization (yuck):
But hey! The real question is how good is this specific book version of the movie? 鈥eah well, it鈥檚 fine. It鈥檚 still very much a Quentin Tarantino story, with all the good and bad that comes with it. The casual misogyny, the racism, the homophobia, it鈥檚 all there. Usually, these things are excused by stating that it鈥檚 鈥渉istorically accurate,鈥� but without the actors here to lessen the blows and add some kind of nuance to the characters, it鈥檚 just that鈥� casual misogyny, racism, and homophobia. Only, it鈥檚 on the page this time around. Otherwise, it certainly reads like a book. Which I鈥檓 aware 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 sound like high praise, but of the few novelizations I鈥檝e read, they mostly just recount things that happened in the movie verbatim, without doing its own thing or adding new interesting context to the characters. So, the changes to the movie鈥檚 structure were definitely unique in this instance, though I think that even though there鈥檚 a lot of backstory (pretty much the whole book) given to characters like Rick Dalton or Cliff Booth, I found that I wasn鈥檛 all that interested in them outside of the context of the film. I guess what I鈥檓 trying to say is that they were made boring in this book version, which is about the worst thing I could say about a Tarantino character.
I mean, the only reason anybody would read the book was for further insight on the characters! And unfortunately, their inner-monologues only helped to display just how shallow they really were in the end. At least the movie version allowed for a modicum of mystery around these two that made them seem like they had something more going on than we see on the screen! I don't know, there was this weird balancing act in the book version where it felt like there was too much detail, but also like there was something key missing. You get all the movie nerd babble that his movies are known for, but none of the aesthetics. The story was definitely made more interesting by the banging soundtrack of the film, that's for sure. So much so that I didn't even realize that I missed it until halfway through the book! Not even playing my Dad Rock playlist while reading this helped! So I think I鈥檒l stick to the movie from now on. In other words, the book definitely showcases how collaborative Tarantino movies are and just how much his material gets elevated by the camera work and the music and the actors he works with. And, and, and! He said it himself; certain actors make his dialogue 鈥�sing.鈥� Phew, now that I鈥檝e talked myself to exhaustion, I鈥檒l just end it by saying that the movie was pretty good and the book was pretty meh. I鈥檓 going to go watch Jackie Brown now, bye.
I鈥檓 going to pretend I鈥檓 on Letterboxd for a minute, so please bear with me. While want to say that I鈥檓 a casual fan of Quentin Tarantino鈥檚 movies, I have seen and somewhat liked all of them, so I guess you could say I鈥檓 a fan鈥� casually. Anyway, I watched Once Upon a Time in Hollywood pretty recently and really enjoyed it! Yeah sure, the movie鈥檚 mostly just people driving around in cool cars for three hours followed by ten minutes of intense and cartoonish violence, but I had a good enough time. In fact, I actually think my favorite parts of the movie were the driving bits, and while they鈥檙e probably overlong and 鈥渦nnecessary鈥� to the plot (whatever that means), I think I鈥檓 more charitable to movies that look like actors are actually in a real place, acting opposite each other, doing a real thing (no shade to a certain other studio). Also, I watched an interview with Quentin Tarantino where he said that this movie was partially based on how he used to go on drives around Los Angeles with his step dad, so that鈥檚 a nice memory. It鈥檚 true that the film certainly has a quality about it that captures that nostalgic, dream-like feeling. And while it鈥檚 definitely no Jackie Brown, I appreciated its more low-key storyline compared to his more heightened movies. The basic story is that it鈥檚 Hollywood, 1969, and we follow a washed-up actor Rick Dalton and his stuntman Cliff Booth for two and a half days as they try to adapt to the changing times. That鈥檚 it. Oh, they also fight the Manson Family in climax. That's a thing for some reason. It鈥檚 not my favorite of his movies, but I was never bored.
Of course, That鈥檚 not to say that there weren鈥檛 some intense, glaring issues that I had with the movie. First of all, its portrayal of Bruce Lee (he鈥檚 also in this) 鈥� what the hell was that!? You鈥檙e going to sit there and tell me that ninety-seven-year-old Br*d P*tt could win against Bruce Lee in his prime? Yeah right. Get out of town! Actually, the Bruce Lee situation brings up a larger issue I had with the story in how the fictional characters are integrated and interact with the real-life figures that are featured in the movie. For example, a large part of the story focuses on Sharon Tate and the Manson Family. Now, if you鈥檝e seen Tarantino鈥檚 other movie, Inglourious Basterds, you鈥檇 probably guess the big 鈥渢wist鈥� in that history is pretty dramatically changed in his movies a lot of the times. Basically, Sharon Tate 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 die by the Manson family in this story, and instead they go to Rick Dalton鈥檚 house and then they all promptly die by the combined efforts of Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth. I know this fairy tale, 鈥渨hat if?鈥� vibe is kind of the whole point, but it felt really odd to me. Like Tarantino was basically saying 鈥渨ell, this terrible tragedy wouldn鈥檛 have happened if my super badass made-up character was there to save the day!鈥� Like鈥� okay? It also 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 help that Sharon Tate is barely in both the movie and the book, removing her as a player in a story that supposedly hinges on what 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 happen to her. The whole thing just had me like, 鈥�so~oo, what was the point of any of this?鈥� Very, very bizarre.
This is the part where I talk about the novelization (yuck):
But hey! The real question is how good is this specific book version of the movie? 鈥eah well, it鈥檚 fine. It鈥檚 still very much a Quentin Tarantino story, with all the good and bad that comes with it. The casual misogyny, the racism, the homophobia, it鈥檚 all there. Usually, these things are excused by stating that it鈥檚 鈥渉istorically accurate,鈥� but without the actors here to lessen the blows and add some kind of nuance to the characters, it鈥檚 just that鈥� casual misogyny, racism, and homophobia. Only, it鈥檚 on the page this time around. Otherwise, it certainly reads like a book. Which I鈥檓 aware 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 sound like high praise, but of the few novelizations I鈥檝e read, they mostly just recount things that happened in the movie verbatim, without doing its own thing or adding new interesting context to the characters. So, the changes to the movie鈥檚 structure were definitely unique in this instance, though I think that even though there鈥檚 a lot of backstory (pretty much the whole book) given to characters like Rick Dalton or Cliff Booth, I found that I wasn鈥檛 all that interested in them outside of the context of the film. I guess what I鈥檓 trying to say is that they were made boring in this book version, which is about the worst thing I could say about a Tarantino character.
I mean, the only reason anybody would read the book was for further insight on the characters! And unfortunately, their inner-monologues only helped to display just how shallow they really were in the end. At least the movie version allowed for a modicum of mystery around these two that made them seem like they had something more going on than we see on the screen! I don't know, there was this weird balancing act in the book version where it felt like there was too much detail, but also like there was something key missing. You get all the movie nerd babble that his movies are known for, but none of the aesthetics. The story was definitely made more interesting by the banging soundtrack of the film, that's for sure. So much so that I didn't even realize that I missed it until halfway through the book! Not even playing my Dad Rock playlist while reading this helped! So I think I鈥檒l stick to the movie from now on. In other words, the book definitely showcases how collaborative Tarantino movies are and just how much his material gets elevated by the camera work and the music and the actors he works with. And, and, and! He said it himself; certain actors make his dialogue 鈥�sing.鈥� Phew, now that I鈥檝e talked myself to exhaustion, I鈥檒l just end it by saying that the movie was pretty good and the book was pretty meh. I鈥檓 going to go watch Jackie Brown now, bye.
July 30, 2021
I can鈥檛 believe I drank 8 whiskey sours while reading this book!
It鈥檚 1969 and former TV star Rick Dalton鈥檚 career is on a downhill slide while his next door neighbors, Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski, are the new cool kids of Hollywood. Meanwhile, Rick鈥檚 stuntman/driver Cliff Booth has a run in with some freaky hippies who keep talking about their leader, Charlie.
This one is a real oddity. You鈥檝e got the writer/director of a successful movie releasing a novel based on it, but the book 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 exactly follow the film. In fact, the climax of the movie is casually revealed about one-third of the way through the book as something that eventually happens without going into details or mentioning it again.
I鈥檝e often thought that Quentin Tarantino鈥檚 films are kind of Rorschach tests in that people can and will read into them what they want. While he certainly deserves criticism for several things, and I often find his personality tiresome, his movies fascinate me. Particularly this one which I thought was one of his best and had really interesting themes about a time when Hollywood was both changing and remaining the same. I also thought it had a lot of intriguing things regarding movie violence vs. violence in reality. Since I had a lot of theories about what QT was actually saying about it, I enjoyed finding more details in the book that seemed to confirm that. Especially about Cliff Booth.
If you鈥檙e into the movie, it鈥檚 worth a look, but you鈥檙e also not really missing out on anything if you just want to stick to the film version. If you don鈥檛 like QT or the film, it鈥檚 not gonna change your mind. Overall, it鈥檚 kind of like a literary version of deleted scenes. They can be interesting, but were most likely cut for a reason.
It鈥檚 1969 and former TV star Rick Dalton鈥檚 career is on a downhill slide while his next door neighbors, Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski, are the new cool kids of Hollywood. Meanwhile, Rick鈥檚 stuntman/driver Cliff Booth has a run in with some freaky hippies who keep talking about their leader, Charlie.
This one is a real oddity. You鈥檝e got the writer/director of a successful movie releasing a novel based on it, but the book 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 exactly follow the film. In fact, the climax of the movie is casually revealed about one-third of the way through the book as something that eventually happens without going into details or mentioning it again.
I鈥檝e often thought that Quentin Tarantino鈥檚 films are kind of Rorschach tests in that people can and will read into them what they want. While he certainly deserves criticism for several things, and I often find his personality tiresome, his movies fascinate me. Particularly this one which I thought was one of his best and had really interesting themes about a time when Hollywood was both changing and remaining the same. I also thought it had a lot of intriguing things regarding movie violence vs. violence in reality. Since I had a lot of theories about what QT was actually saying about it, I enjoyed finding more details in the book that seemed to confirm that. Especially about Cliff Booth.
If you鈥檙e into the movie, it鈥檚 worth a look, but you鈥檙e also not really missing out on anything if you just want to stick to the film version. If you don鈥檛 like QT or the film, it鈥檚 not gonna change your mind. Overall, it鈥檚 kind of like a literary version of deleted scenes. They can be interesting, but were most likely cut for a reason.
April 6, 2025
Real Jayakrishnan: Admit it. It was a piece of shit. A real gorilla turd. In fact, it is a giant smelly elephant turd.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: No. It is a work of great audacity, made by a super-spreader of American culture. Tarantino is a great soldier in the army that spreads American culture. He has introduced Charles Manson, Sharon Tate and Matt Helm to a whole new generation of millennials across the world. The man has singlehandedly extended American cultural hegemony by atleast half a century. And it is not some Jurassic Park or superhero Avengers shit. He actually made a film about his cultural obsessions that might be considered obscure in many parts of the world. Tarantino is a truly great man with a lot of balls.
Real Jayakrishnan: Jeez! You do have a point. But it is the most boring shit ever written! You've got to admit large parts of the book and even the movie are fucking tedious. Like the scene where Sharon Tate goes to watch her own movie. That part was so dull. And the long plot of the TV series Rick Dalton is acting in. Dalton's conversation with that pompous little girl. All so damn banal.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: Well, Tarantino is constantly challenging viewers and other directors about what can be put on screen. The whole book is like his fantasy. How many directors have the guts or for that matter the clout to actually make what they want? Even the great Scorsese had to make a kids film to finance what he really wanted to make.
Real Jayakrishnan: Hmmm.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: Most directors or for that matter writers have no freedom. They are just pussies who dish out whatever the establishment allows them to. Tarantino is a badass who is right at the centre of it all but still writes and makes whatever he wants. He is not some indie movie maker hiding away somewhere, crawling out of his hole every ten years to whine about the decline of American culture. Nor does he play by the rules. The book and film are full of scenes where he fulfills his fetish for dirty female feet.
Real Jayakrishnan: I think he could be a closet fascist bastard who is sleazy as hell. Frankly, his career has gone downhill since he started making all these revisionist history movies.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: They all made money. Everyone loved these films. Sure Kill Bill 2 was probably his last great movie. But you've got to admit the stuff he made since then are all very interesting. Not perfect maybe. They were too talky. Needed more action. But still better than 99% of all mainstream or even independent American movies.
Real Jayakrishnan: The guy needs a strict producer like the Kirk Douglas character in The Bad and the Beautiful, who tells him what to do. Someone who keeps him grounded and not just take off on flights of fancy.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: Not too sure about that. I mean look at the scope of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Manson, 60s Hollywood, stuntmen, alcoholism, ageing, Aldo Ray, Italian westerns. Damn!
Real Jayakrishnan: Anyone who knows how to look up IMDB trivia could have written this book. You know that is the truth.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: HAHAHA! You've got a point there.
Real Jayakrishnan: In the book, Cliff Booth is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Tarantino's opinions on movies and directors.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: I think Tarantino is done writing action and thrilling scenes for the sake of it. That's why the two most thrilling scenes in the movie are reduced to almost nothing in the book. He is going deep into his obsessions. The guy has nine consecutive box office hits. Nobody can tell him what to make and write.
Real Jayakrishnan: OK man. You can stay on your Tarantino bandwagon. He isn't going to be around for too long making movies.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: Sure man. It's really nice and cozy in here. It is a cornucopia of pleasant surprises and he has said he will become a full time writer of novels.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: No. It is a work of great audacity, made by a super-spreader of American culture. Tarantino is a great soldier in the army that spreads American culture. He has introduced Charles Manson, Sharon Tate and Matt Helm to a whole new generation of millennials across the world. The man has singlehandedly extended American cultural hegemony by atleast half a century. And it is not some Jurassic Park or superhero Avengers shit. He actually made a film about his cultural obsessions that might be considered obscure in many parts of the world. Tarantino is a truly great man with a lot of balls.
Real Jayakrishnan: Jeez! You do have a point. But it is the most boring shit ever written! You've got to admit large parts of the book and even the movie are fucking tedious. Like the scene where Sharon Tate goes to watch her own movie. That part was so dull. And the long plot of the TV series Rick Dalton is acting in. Dalton's conversation with that pompous little girl. All so damn banal.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: Well, Tarantino is constantly challenging viewers and other directors about what can be put on screen. The whole book is like his fantasy. How many directors have the guts or for that matter the clout to actually make what they want? Even the great Scorsese had to make a kids film to finance what he really wanted to make.
Real Jayakrishnan: Hmmm.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: Most directors or for that matter writers have no freedom. They are just pussies who dish out whatever the establishment allows them to. Tarantino is a badass who is right at the centre of it all but still writes and makes whatever he wants. He is not some indie movie maker hiding away somewhere, crawling out of his hole every ten years to whine about the decline of American culture. Nor does he play by the rules. The book and film are full of scenes where he fulfills his fetish for dirty female feet.
Real Jayakrishnan: I think he could be a closet fascist bastard who is sleazy as hell. Frankly, his career has gone downhill since he started making all these revisionist history movies.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: They all made money. Everyone loved these films. Sure Kill Bill 2 was probably his last great movie. But you've got to admit the stuff he made since then are all very interesting. Not perfect maybe. They were too talky. Needed more action. But still better than 99% of all mainstream or even independent American movies.
Real Jayakrishnan: The guy needs a strict producer like the Kirk Douglas character in The Bad and the Beautiful, who tells him what to do. Someone who keeps him grounded and not just take off on flights of fancy.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: Not too sure about that. I mean look at the scope of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Manson, 60s Hollywood, stuntmen, alcoholism, ageing, Aldo Ray, Italian westerns. Damn!
Real Jayakrishnan: Anyone who knows how to look up IMDB trivia could have written this book. You know that is the truth.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: HAHAHA! You've got a point there.
Real Jayakrishnan: In the book, Cliff Booth is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Tarantino's opinions on movies and directors.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: I think Tarantino is done writing action and thrilling scenes for the sake of it. That's why the two most thrilling scenes in the movie are reduced to almost nothing in the book. He is going deep into his obsessions. The guy has nine consecutive box office hits. Nobody can tell him what to make and write.
Real Jayakrishnan: OK man. You can stay on your Tarantino bandwagon. He isn't going to be around for too long making movies.
Wannabe Jayakrishnan: Sure man. It's really nice and cozy in here. It is a cornucopia of pleasant surprises and he has said he will become a full time writer of novels.
July 21, 2021
This might not be the best written novel I've read this year but it's the most entertaining.
If you enjoyed the movie you will absolutely love the novelization.
Holy Christ! I was screwing around looking for more YouTube interviews with Quentin Tarantino about this novel & damned if I 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 come across a 10-hour audiobook- a reading by one of my absolute favorite actresses (ahem 鈥� actors) Jennifer Jason Leigh!
I swear before God: she is a brilliant reader. Plus, I learned after many, many years how to pronounce Cahiers du Cinema .
I鈥檓 actually re-reading this novel along with Jennifer Jason Leigh鈥� which is no minor kick.
If you enjoyed the movie you will absolutely love the novelization.
Holy Christ! I was screwing around looking for more YouTube interviews with Quentin Tarantino about this novel & damned if I 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 come across a 10-hour audiobook- a reading by one of my absolute favorite actresses (ahem 鈥� actors) Jennifer Jason Leigh!
I swear before God: she is a brilliant reader. Plus, I learned after many, many years how to pronounce Cahiers du Cinema .
I鈥檓 actually re-reading this novel along with Jennifer Jason Leigh鈥� which is no minor kick.
July 14, 2021
English:
This novelization of Tarantino's ninth movie makes a bold move: The grand finale of the film is only mentioned in passing in a couple of sentences in the first third of the text, the author uses his space, time and freedom to elaborate on Rick Dalton und Cliff Booth. Quick recap: Dalton is the aging actor who wrestles with his impending lack of relevance, Booth is his stuntman and buddy who is haunted by a bad reputation. They travel through a fairy tale-like rendition of 1969 Hollywood, a beautifully shot dreamscape.
Usually, novelizations of movies are crafted in the spirit of capitalist monetization, as a means to generate more dollars, not as an artistic endeavor. It's safe to say that this author doesn't need more money though, and he also doesn't sell out. Rather, Tarantino gives us extensive backstories to his antiheroes Dalton and Booth (plus Brandy, the pitbull), we even learn what really happened to Booth's wife (in the movie, he is rumored to have killed her). The author also indulges in long discussions of classic (and less classic) hollywood movies and their impact, about directors, anecdotes from film sets, and stories about stars like, yes, Bruce Lee (whose portrayal in the movie was controversial). And it probably has become clear by now: This is not a plot-driven novel, much like the movie is not plot-driven. The text revels in scenic depictions, atmospheric dialogue as well detailed character development, and I'm here for it. Unsurprisingly, there's also a pulpy feel to the book, with simple, sometimes foul language - it's a shame that the German publisher released it in a fancy hardcover, against the author's wishes who wanted a cheap paperback aesthetic.
I just love how Tarantino unapologetically nerds out and re-creates the old Hollywood in a heightened version, hyperreal, tinted in shades of nostalgic yellow and sepia. In the movie, we see a film production without the camera, thus putting the reality in the movie on the same level as the reality created inside the movie narrative. In the novel, Tarantino does the same: He does also expand the story of "Lancer" that is shot with Dalton as the villain. The fictional characters who, in the fictional realm, are created by other fictional characters, are just as important as those who embody them.
And of course there's the melancholy of the two aging men, the standoff between old and new Hollywood, and Dalton's wish that Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate might open the gates for him. Tarantino has just re-iterated that he will only make one more movie and retire as a director with a perfect ten. Does he, a guy with a career that by now almost spans 30 years and who just bought a second movie theater to save it from being closed, sometimes feel like a nostalgic fossil, threatened by streaming platforms?
Well, he shouldn't. Tarantino is still the real deal. You can learn more about the book in (in German).
This novelization of Tarantino's ninth movie makes a bold move: The grand finale of the film is only mentioned in passing in a couple of sentences in the first third of the text, the author uses his space, time and freedom to elaborate on Rick Dalton und Cliff Booth. Quick recap: Dalton is the aging actor who wrestles with his impending lack of relevance, Booth is his stuntman and buddy who is haunted by a bad reputation. They travel through a fairy tale-like rendition of 1969 Hollywood, a beautifully shot dreamscape.
Usually, novelizations of movies are crafted in the spirit of capitalist monetization, as a means to generate more dollars, not as an artistic endeavor. It's safe to say that this author doesn't need more money though, and he also doesn't sell out. Rather, Tarantino gives us extensive backstories to his antiheroes Dalton and Booth (plus Brandy, the pitbull), we even learn what really happened to Booth's wife (in the movie, he is rumored to have killed her). The author also indulges in long discussions of classic (and less classic) hollywood movies and their impact, about directors, anecdotes from film sets, and stories about stars like, yes, Bruce Lee (whose portrayal in the movie was controversial). And it probably has become clear by now: This is not a plot-driven novel, much like the movie is not plot-driven. The text revels in scenic depictions, atmospheric dialogue as well detailed character development, and I'm here for it. Unsurprisingly, there's also a pulpy feel to the book, with simple, sometimes foul language - it's a shame that the German publisher released it in a fancy hardcover, against the author's wishes who wanted a cheap paperback aesthetic.
I just love how Tarantino unapologetically nerds out and re-creates the old Hollywood in a heightened version, hyperreal, tinted in shades of nostalgic yellow and sepia. In the movie, we see a film production without the camera, thus putting the reality in the movie on the same level as the reality created inside the movie narrative. In the novel, Tarantino does the same: He does also expand the story of "Lancer" that is shot with Dalton as the villain. The fictional characters who, in the fictional realm, are created by other fictional characters, are just as important as those who embody them.
And of course there's the melancholy of the two aging men, the standoff between old and new Hollywood, and Dalton's wish that Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate might open the gates for him. Tarantino has just re-iterated that he will only make one more movie and retire as a director with a perfect ten. Does he, a guy with a career that by now almost spans 30 years and who just bought a second movie theater to save it from being closed, sometimes feel like a nostalgic fossil, threatened by streaming platforms?
Well, he shouldn't. Tarantino is still the real deal. You can learn more about the book in (in German).
September 2, 2021
诏賮鬲丕乇 丕賳丿乇 鬲賵氐蹖賮 讴鬲丕亘
賲丕賴蹖趩賴貙 丿賳亘賴貙 賳禺賵丿貙 賱賵亘蹖丕貙 诏賵噩賴貙 倬蹖丕夭貙 爻蹖亘鈥屫操呟屬嗃屫� 爻蹖乇貙 乇賵睾賳貙 賳賲讴 賵 賮賱賮賱 乇賵 賲蹖鈥屫臂屫槽屬� 丿乇 賯丕亘賱賲賴貙 鬲丕 讴賲乇 丿乇賵賳 丌賳 丌亘 賲蹖乇蹖夭蹖賲 賵 诏丕夭 乇丕 乇賵卮賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 鬲丕 倬禺鬲賴 卮賵丿貙 倬爻 丕夭 倬禺鬲賴 卮丿賳 賮丕乇睾 丕夭 賲夭賴 賯胤毓丕 賴賲 賲丕 乇丕 爻蹖乇 禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿 賵 賴賲 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 睾賳蹖 亘賵丿賳 丕夭 賮蹖亘乇 亘賴 乇賮毓 蹖亘賵爻鬲 讴賲讴 禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿.
爻蹖丕賴賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 丌賳趩賴 讴賴 禺賵丕賳丿賲 賵 鬲賲丕卮丕 讴乇丿賲
亘賴 丿賵 丿賱蹖賱 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 丕夭 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賳丕乇丕丨鬲 賳蹖爻鬲賲 亘賱讴賴 禺賵卮丨丕賱 賴賲 賴爻鬲賲:
丕賵賱 丕蹖賳讴賴 賴丿蹖賴鈥屫й� 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕夭 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丿賵爻鬲丕賳 毓夭蹖夭鬲乇 丕夭 噩丕賳賲 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲 讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿賲 賵 丿賵賲 丌賳鈥屭┵� 倬爻 丕夭 丕鬲賲丕賲 蹖讴 乇賲丕賳 爻賳诏蹖賳 賳蹖丕夭 亘賴 趩賳蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵丕賳 賵 爻丕丿賴鈥屫й� 丿丕卮鬲賲 鬲丕 賴賲 匕賴賳賲 讴賲蹖 丕爻鬲乇丕丨鬲 讴賳丿 賵 賴賲 亘賴 賯賵賱 賲毓乇賵賮 亘卮賵乇丿 賵 亘亘乇丿 倬丕蹖蹖賳... .
倬蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇趩蹖夭蹖 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 丿賵 賳讴鬲賴 丕卮丕乇賴 讴賳賲:
丕賵賱 丕蹖賳讴賴 賯亘賱 丕夭 禺賵丕賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 賮蹖賱賲卮 乇丕 賳丿蹖丿賴 亘賵丿賲 賵 丕賲乇賵夭 倬爻 丕夭 禺賵丕賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 鬲賲丕卮丕蹖 丌賳 賳卮爻鬲賲貙 丕毓鬲乇丕賮 賲蹖讴賳賲 讴鬲丕亘 蹖讴 爻乇 賵 诏乇丿賳 亘丕賱丕鬲乇 丕夭 賮蹖賱賲 亘賵丿 賵 丿乇 賮蹖賱賲 趩賳丿 賲賵乇丿 讴賴 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 賵噩賵丿 丿丕卮鬲 乇丕 丿乇禺賵丿 賳丿丕卮鬲 賵 囟賲賳丕 鬲賲丕卮丕蹖卮 賳蹖夭 賴蹖趩 噩匕丕亘蹖鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 賳丿丕卮鬲.
丿賵賲 丕蹖賳讴賴 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴 丕爻鬲 丕夭 丌賯丕蹖 芦毓賱蹖乇囟丕 卮賮蹖毓蹖鈥屬嗀池� 亘丕亘鬲 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 乇賵丕賳 賵 禺賱丕賯丕賳賴鈥屰� 丕蹖卮丕賳 鬲卮讴乇 讴賳賲 賴乇 趩賳丿 丕蹖卮丕賳 乇丕 丕夭 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 亘賴 丿賵乇 賳賲蹖鈥屫з嗁� 賵 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 丕诏乇 乇賵夭蹖 诏匕乇卮丕賳 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丌亘丕丿蹖 丕賮鬲丕丿 丿乇 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屬囏й� 亘毓丿蹖 丕蹖賳 賳讴鬲賴 乇丕 賲丿 賳馗乇 賯乇丕乇 丿賴賳丿 讴賴 噩讴鈥屸€屬囏� 賵 卮賵禺蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 夭亘丕賳丕賳 亘賴 賴蹖趩賵噩賴 卮亘丕賴鬲蹖 亘賴 噩讴鈥屬囏� 賵 卮賵禺蹖鈥屬囏й� 賲丕 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 賲賳馗賵乇 賱丕夭賲 賳蹖爻鬲 賲鬲乇噩賲 胤賳夭賴丕 賵 卮賵禺蹖鈥屬囏й� 丌賳丕賳 乇丕 讴丕賲賱丕 賮丕乇爻蹖鈥屫池ж槽� 讴賳丿 趩賵賳 賲丕 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇蹖賲 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 丌賳 讴卮賵乇 乇丕 噩匕亘 賵噩賵丿 禺賵丿賲丕賳 讴賳蹖賲 賵诏乇賳賴 亘賴 禺賵丕賳丿賳賽 (賲噩丿丿) 丌孬丕乇 賲乇丨賵賲 噩賲丕賱鈥屫藏ж� 乇賵蹖 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必屬� 鬲丕 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 禺丕乇噩蹖.
丿乇 禺氐賵氐 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 賲賯丿賲賴鈥屰� 讴鬲丕亘 賵丕賲 賲蹖鈥屭屫辟� 賵 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳 丿爻鬲賴 丕夭 毓夭蹖夭丕賳蹖 讴賴 賳賴 賮蹖賱賲卮 乇丕 丿蹖丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵 賳賴 讴鬲丕亘卮 乇丕 禺賵丕賳丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫迟�:
芦乇蹖讴 丿丕賱鬲賵賳(賱卅賵賳丕乇丿賵 丿蹖鈥屭┴з矩臂屬�) 乇賵夭诏丕乇蹖 亘丕夭蹖诏乇 爻乇蹖丕賱 賲卮賴賵乇蹖 亘賵丿賴貙 丕賲丕 丨丕賱丕 丿賵乇丕賳 丕賵噩卮 亘賴 倬丕蹖丕賳 乇爻蹖丿賴 賵 亘乇丕蹖 丕賲乇丕乇 賲毓丕卮 亘賴 賳賯卮鈥屬囏й� 賲賳賮蹖 鬲讴 賯爻賲鬲蹖 乇賵蹖 丌賵乇丿賴(賲卮鬲 禺賵乇 賮蹖賱賲鈥屬囏� 卮丿賴). 丌蹖丕 賲賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賵 亘丕 蹖讴 賲丿蹖乇亘乇賳丕賲賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屫� 夭賳丿诏蹖鈥屫� 乇丕 丿爻鬲鈥屫堌� 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 讴賳丿責!
讴蹖賮 亘賵孬貙(亘乇丿 倬蹖鬲 丿乇 賮蹖賱賲) 亘丿賱鈥屭┴ж� 爻蹖賳賲丕 丕爻鬲 賵 賳賯卮 亘丿賱鈥屬囏й� 乇蹖讴 乇丕 丿乇 爻乇蹖丕賱鈥屬囏� 亘丕夭蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 夭賳丿诏蹖鈥屫ж� 倬乇 丕爻鬲 丕夭 賱讴賴鈥屬囏й� 爻蹖丕賴.禄
卮賲丕 毓夭蹖夭丕賳 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 賵 賮蹖賱賲貙 賵賯丕蹖毓鈥屬嗂ж臂� 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕蹖賳 丿賵 亘丕夭蹖诏乇 賵 亘丿賱讴丕乇 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 卮丕乇賵賳 鬲蹖鬲 賵 趩丕乇賱夭 賲賳爻賵賳 賵... 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 鬲賯丕亘賱鈥屬囏й屫簇з� 乇丕 禺賵丕賴蹖丿 禺賵丕賳丿 賵 鬲賲丕卮丕 禺賵丕賴蹖丿 讴乇丿.
賲鬲賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵丕賳 亘賵丿 賵 丕毓鬲乇丕賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 丿蹖卮亘 賵賯鬲蹖 蹖讴 爻賵賲 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 馗乇賮 趩賳丿 爻丕毓鬲 亘丕 毓賱丕賯賴 亘丿賵賳 丕蹖賳讴賴 讴賳丕乇卮 亘诏匕丕乇賲 禺賵丕賳丿賲卮 賮讴乇 賳賲蹖鈥屭┴必� 亘賴 蹖讴鈥屫ㄘж辟� 噩乇蹖丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 丿爻鬲鈥屫堌� 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 诏乇丿蹖丿 賵 丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 蹖讴 乇賲丕賳 乇賵丕賳 賵 丿賱鈥屬嗀篡屬� 亘賴 蹖讴 賵賯丕蹖毓鈥屬嗂ж臂� 爻丕丿賴 賵 诏丕賴蹖 禺爻鬲賴 讴賳賳丿賴 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮賵丿!
亘蹖卮 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘賴 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 賵乇賵丿 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賵 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖讴賴 毓賱丕賯賴 亘賴 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 爻亘讴 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏� 丿丕乇蹖丿 賵 蹖丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 毓賱丕賯賴 亘賴 爻蹖賳賲丕 亘賴 禺氐賵氐 賴丕賱蹖賵賵丿 賵 亘丕夭蹖诏乇丕賳 賮賵賯鈥屫з勜摆┴� 丿丕乇蹖丿貙 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 卮賲丕 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.
賳賯賱鈥屬傎堎� 賳丕賲賴
芦丕诏乇 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囒� 亘賮賴賲蹖 讴卮鬲賳 丌丿賲 趩賴 丨爻蹖 丿丕乇賴貙 亘賴 賱丨丕馗 賯丕賳賵賳蹖 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 诏夭蹖賳賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 丿丕乇蹖 讴卮鬲賳 蹖讴 禺賵讴賴.禄
芦丕诏乇 亘乇蹖 鬲賵 丿賱 鬲乇爻 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗃� 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 禺賵丿鬲 睾賱亘賴 讴賳蹖. 睾賱亘賴 亘乇 鬲乇爻 蹖毓賳蹖 卮讴爻鬲鈥屬嗀з矩佰屫臂屄�
讴丕乇賳丕賲赖
蹖讴 爻鬲丕乇賴 亘丕亘鬲 丕蹖賳讴賴 倬爻 丕夭 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 賴蹖趩 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賲賳 丕囟丕賮賴 賳卮丿 賵 丿乇 倬丕蹖丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲賯丕亘賱 丌蹖賳賴 丕蹖爻鬲丕丿賲 賵 亘賴 丕賵蹖蹖 讴賴 禺蹖賱蹖 亘賴 賲賳 卮亘丕賴鬲 丿丕乇丿 诏賮鬲賲: 禺亘 讴賴 趩賴責!責 蹖讴 爻鬲丕乇賴 亘丕亘鬲 丕蹖賳讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘丕 禺賵丿卮 賮讴乇 讴乇丿 賴乇趩賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賳賵蹖爻丿 賱丕亘丿 讴鬲丕亘卮 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賮乇賵禺鬲賴 禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿 賵 蹖讴 爻鬲丕乇賴 亘丕亘鬲 丕蹖賳讴賴 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丿賵爻賵賲 倬丕蹖丕賳蹖 丕夭 丨丕賱鬲 乇賲丕賳 禺丕乇噩 卮丿 賵 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賴 蹖讴 賮蹖賱賲鈥屬嗀з呝� 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 讴爻乇 賵 賳賴丕蹖鬲丕 鄄 爻鬲丕乇賴 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲賳馗賵乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.
賲丕賴蹖趩賴貙 丿賳亘賴貙 賳禺賵丿貙 賱賵亘蹖丕貙 诏賵噩賴貙 倬蹖丕夭貙 爻蹖亘鈥屫操呟屬嗃屫� 爻蹖乇貙 乇賵睾賳貙 賳賲讴 賵 賮賱賮賱 乇賵 賲蹖鈥屫臂屫槽屬� 丿乇 賯丕亘賱賲賴貙 鬲丕 讴賲乇 丿乇賵賳 丌賳 丌亘 賲蹖乇蹖夭蹖賲 賵 诏丕夭 乇丕 乇賵卮賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗃屬� 鬲丕 倬禺鬲賴 卮賵丿貙 倬爻 丕夭 倬禺鬲賴 卮丿賳 賮丕乇睾 丕夭 賲夭賴 賯胤毓丕 賴賲 賲丕 乇丕 爻蹖乇 禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿 賵 賴賲 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 睾賳蹖 亘賵丿賳 丕夭 賮蹖亘乇 亘賴 乇賮毓 蹖亘賵爻鬲 讴賲讴 禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿.
爻蹖丕賴賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 丌賳趩賴 讴賴 禺賵丕賳丿賲 賵 鬲賲丕卮丕 讴乇丿賲
亘賴 丿賵 丿賱蹖賱 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 丕夭 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賳丕乇丕丨鬲 賳蹖爻鬲賲 亘賱讴賴 禺賵卮丨丕賱 賴賲 賴爻鬲賲:
丕賵賱 丕蹖賳讴賴 賴丿蹖賴鈥屫й� 亘賵丿 讴賴 丕夭 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丿賵爻鬲丕賳 毓夭蹖夭鬲乇 丕夭 噩丕賳賲 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲 讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿賲 賵 丿賵賲 丌賳鈥屭┵� 倬爻 丕夭 丕鬲賲丕賲 蹖讴 乇賲丕賳 爻賳诏蹖賳 賳蹖丕夭 亘賴 趩賳蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵丕賳 賵 爻丕丿賴鈥屫й� 丿丕卮鬲賲 鬲丕 賴賲 匕賴賳賲 讴賲蹖 丕爻鬲乇丕丨鬲 讴賳丿 賵 賴賲 亘賴 賯賵賱 賲毓乇賵賮 亘卮賵乇丿 賵 亘亘乇丿 倬丕蹖蹖賳... .
倬蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇趩蹖夭蹖 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 丿賵 賳讴鬲賴 丕卮丕乇賴 讴賳賲:
丕賵賱 丕蹖賳讴賴 賯亘賱 丕夭 禺賵丕賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 賮蹖賱賲卮 乇丕 賳丿蹖丿賴 亘賵丿賲 賵 丕賲乇賵夭 倬爻 丕夭 禺賵丕賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 鬲賲丕卮丕蹖 丌賳 賳卮爻鬲賲貙 丕毓鬲乇丕賮 賲蹖讴賳賲 讴鬲丕亘 蹖讴 爻乇 賵 诏乇丿賳 亘丕賱丕鬲乇 丕夭 賮蹖賱賲 亘賵丿 賵 丿乇 賮蹖賱賲 趩賳丿 賲賵乇丿 讴賴 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 賵噩賵丿 丿丕卮鬲 乇丕 丿乇禺賵丿 賳丿丕卮鬲 賵 囟賲賳丕 鬲賲丕卮丕蹖卮 賳蹖夭 賴蹖趩 噩匕丕亘蹖鬲蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 賳丿丕卮鬲.
丿賵賲 丕蹖賳讴賴 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴 丕爻鬲 丕夭 丌賯丕蹖 芦毓賱蹖乇囟丕 卮賮蹖毓蹖鈥屬嗀池� 亘丕亘鬲 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 乇賵丕賳 賵 禺賱丕賯丕賳賴鈥屰� 丕蹖卮丕賳 鬲卮讴乇 讴賳賲 賴乇 趩賳丿 丕蹖卮丕賳 乇丕 丕夭 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 亘賴 丿賵乇 賳賲蹖鈥屫з嗁� 賵 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 丕诏乇 乇賵夭蹖 诏匕乇卮丕賳 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丌亘丕丿蹖 丕賮鬲丕丿 丿乇 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屬囏й� 亘毓丿蹖 丕蹖賳 賳讴鬲賴 乇丕 賲丿 賳馗乇 賯乇丕乇 丿賴賳丿 讴賴 噩讴鈥屸€屬囏� 賵 卮賵禺蹖鈥屬囏й� 丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖 夭亘丕賳丕賳 亘賴 賴蹖趩賵噩賴 卮亘丕賴鬲蹖 亘賴 噩讴鈥屬囏� 賵 卮賵禺蹖鈥屬囏й� 賲丕 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 賲賳馗賵乇 賱丕夭賲 賳蹖爻鬲 賲鬲乇噩賲 胤賳夭賴丕 賵 卮賵禺蹖鈥屬囏й� 丌賳丕賳 乇丕 讴丕賲賱丕 賮丕乇爻蹖鈥屫池ж槽� 讴賳丿 趩賵賳 賲丕 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇蹖賲 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 丌賳 讴卮賵乇 乇丕 噩匕亘 賵噩賵丿 禺賵丿賲丕賳 讴賳蹖賲 賵诏乇賳賴 亘賴 禺賵丕賳丿賳賽 (賲噩丿丿) 丌孬丕乇 賲乇丨賵賲 噩賲丕賱鈥屫藏ж� 乇賵蹖 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必屬� 鬲丕 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏й� 禺丕乇噩蹖.
丿乇 禺氐賵氐 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 賲賯丿賲賴鈥屰� 讴鬲丕亘 賵丕賲 賲蹖鈥屭屫辟� 賵 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳 丿爻鬲賴 丕夭 毓夭蹖夭丕賳蹖 讴賴 賳賴 賮蹖賱賲卮 乇丕 丿蹖丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵 賳賴 讴鬲丕亘卮 乇丕 禺賵丕賳丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫迟�:
芦乇蹖讴 丿丕賱鬲賵賳(賱卅賵賳丕乇丿賵 丿蹖鈥屭┴з矩臂屬�) 乇賵夭诏丕乇蹖 亘丕夭蹖诏乇 爻乇蹖丕賱 賲卮賴賵乇蹖 亘賵丿賴貙 丕賲丕 丨丕賱丕 丿賵乇丕賳 丕賵噩卮 亘賴 倬丕蹖丕賳 乇爻蹖丿賴 賵 亘乇丕蹖 丕賲乇丕乇 賲毓丕卮 亘賴 賳賯卮鈥屬囏й� 賲賳賮蹖 鬲讴 賯爻賲鬲蹖 乇賵蹖 丌賵乇丿賴(賲卮鬲 禺賵乇 賮蹖賱賲鈥屬囏� 卮丿賴). 丌蹖丕 賲賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賵 亘丕 蹖讴 賲丿蹖乇亘乇賳丕賲賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屫� 夭賳丿诏蹖鈥屫� 乇丕 丿爻鬲鈥屫堌� 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 讴賳丿責!
讴蹖賮 亘賵孬貙(亘乇丿 倬蹖鬲 丿乇 賮蹖賱賲) 亘丿賱鈥屭┴ж� 爻蹖賳賲丕 丕爻鬲 賵 賳賯卮 亘丿賱鈥屬囏й� 乇蹖讴 乇丕 丿乇 爻乇蹖丕賱鈥屬囏� 亘丕夭蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 夭賳丿诏蹖鈥屫ж� 倬乇 丕爻鬲 丕夭 賱讴賴鈥屬囏й� 爻蹖丕賴.禄
卮賲丕 毓夭蹖夭丕賳 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 賵 賮蹖賱賲貙 賵賯丕蹖毓鈥屬嗂ж臂� 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕蹖賳 丿賵 亘丕夭蹖诏乇 賵 亘丿賱讴丕乇 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 卮丕乇賵賳 鬲蹖鬲 賵 趩丕乇賱夭 賲賳爻賵賳 賵... 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 鬲賯丕亘賱鈥屬囏й屫簇з� 乇丕 禺賵丕賴蹖丿 禺賵丕賳丿 賵 鬲賲丕卮丕 禺賵丕賴蹖丿 讴乇丿.
賲鬲賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵丕賳 亘賵丿 賵 丕毓鬲乇丕賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 丿蹖卮亘 賵賯鬲蹖 蹖讴 爻賵賲 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 馗乇賮 趩賳丿 爻丕毓鬲 亘丕 毓賱丕賯賴 亘丿賵賳 丕蹖賳讴賴 讴賳丕乇卮 亘诏匕丕乇賲 禺賵丕賳丿賲卮 賮讴乇 賳賲蹖鈥屭┴必� 亘賴 蹖讴鈥屫ㄘж辟� 噩乇蹖丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 丿爻鬲鈥屫堌� 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 诏乇丿蹖丿 賵 丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴 爻丕禺鬲丕乇 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 蹖讴 乇賲丕賳 乇賵丕賳 賵 丿賱鈥屬嗀篡屬� 亘賴 蹖讴 賵賯丕蹖毓鈥屬嗂ж臂� 爻丕丿賴 賵 诏丕賴蹖 禺爻鬲賴 讴賳賳丿賴 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮賵丿!
亘蹖卮 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘賴 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 賵乇賵丿 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 賵 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖讴賴 毓賱丕賯賴 亘賴 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 爻亘讴 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘鈥屬囏� 丿丕乇蹖丿 賵 蹖丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 毓賱丕賯賴 亘賴 爻蹖賳賲丕 亘賴 禺氐賵氐 賴丕賱蹖賵賵丿 賵 亘丕夭蹖诏乇丕賳 賮賵賯鈥屫з勜摆┴� 丿丕乇蹖丿貙 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 卮賲丕 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.
賳賯賱鈥屬傎堎� 賳丕賲賴
芦丕诏乇 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囒� 亘賮賴賲蹖 讴卮鬲賳 丌丿賲 趩賴 丨爻蹖 丿丕乇賴貙 亘賴 賱丨丕馗 賯丕賳賵賳蹖 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 诏夭蹖賳賴鈥屫й� 讴賴 丿乇 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 丿丕乇蹖 讴卮鬲賳 蹖讴 禺賵讴賴.禄
芦丕诏乇 亘乇蹖 鬲賵 丿賱 鬲乇爻 賲蹖鈥屫堎嗃� 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 禺賵丿鬲 睾賱亘賴 讴賳蹖. 睾賱亘賴 亘乇 鬲乇爻 蹖毓賳蹖 卮讴爻鬲鈥屬嗀з矩佰屫臂屄�
讴丕乇賳丕賲赖
蹖讴 爻鬲丕乇賴 亘丕亘鬲 丕蹖賳讴賴 倬爻 丕夭 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 賴蹖趩 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賴 賲賳 丕囟丕賮賴 賳卮丿 賵 丿乇 倬丕蹖丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲賯丕亘賱 丌蹖賳賴 丕蹖爻鬲丕丿賲 賵 亘賴 丕賵蹖蹖 讴賴 禺蹖賱蹖 亘賴 賲賳 卮亘丕賴鬲 丿丕乇丿 诏賮鬲賲: 禺亘 讴賴 趩賴責!責 蹖讴 爻鬲丕乇賴 亘丕亘鬲 丕蹖賳讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘丕 禺賵丿卮 賮讴乇 讴乇丿 賴乇趩賴 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賳賵蹖爻丿 賱丕亘丿 讴鬲丕亘卮 亘蹖卮鬲乇 賮乇賵禺鬲賴 禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿 賵 蹖讴 爻鬲丕乇賴 亘丕亘鬲 丕蹖賳讴賴 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丿賵爻賵賲 倬丕蹖丕賳蹖 丕夭 丨丕賱鬲 乇賲丕賳 禺丕乇噩 卮丿 賵 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賴 蹖讴 賮蹖賱賲鈥屬嗀з呝� 鬲亘丿蹖賱 卮丿 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 讴爻乇 賵 賳賴丕蹖鬲丕 鄄 爻鬲丕乇賴 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲賳馗賵乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁�.
August 10, 2021
It鈥檚 1969, Hollywood, and Rick Dalton, an aging, washed-up, alcoholic actor, is looking for work - and finds it, playing the villain (he used to play heroes when he was younger), on a new cowboy TV show. Joining Rick on his slide down from the top is his best friend and stuntman stand-in (when Rick needed it), Cliff Booth. Together they navigate a strange path through a changing film industry and encounter up-and-coming actors, uppity agents, and hippies - hippies are everywhere. And some of them, like spurned wannabe rock star Charlie Manson, are gonna take out their frustrations on the unwitting residents of the Hollywood Hills鈥�
Quentin Tarantino鈥檚 debut novel, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, is, like his films, a banger! It鈥檚 such a fun read. The dialogue is sparkling and the characters are so memorable - aside from child actor Trudi鈥檚 surname (it鈥檚 Frazer), I 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 need to look up any of the characters鈥� full names; they鈥檙e so well realised and seared into my mind that I could easily recall all of them. And that鈥檚 rare in most books, even for the good ones. Tarantino is a consummate storyteller and he excels at this regardless of the medium.
Rick in particular is such an amazing character. He鈥檚 dopey but lovable, and surprisingly smart at times, like when he shines on camera. He鈥檚 vulnerable - an alcoholic as a result of being undiagnosed bipolar - but also very arrogant and proud. Still, I was rooting for him every step of the way.
The movie has this over the book: Leo鈥檚 performance is far better than the novel Rick鈥檚 was. Rick going to town in a fit of self-loathing in the safety of his trailer, and the scene on the set of the western where he pulls off that stellar performance as Caleb the villain, are so good because of DiCaprio鈥檚 acting talent - we only get a whiff of that brilliance in the novel.
Cliff in the novel is a much darker person, especially as Tarantino sheds more light on the character鈥檚 murders, post-military. And yet we still like the guy and never see him as anything less than a good dude. It鈥檚 amazing how Tarantino creates such fully-developed characters. The child actor Trudi and the agent Marvin are also standouts for me.
The likeability of such flawed characters is due in large part to the playful tone of the story (鈥淥nce upon a time鈥︹€�). A lot of dark things happen in this book but there鈥檚 plenty of upbeat, amusing episodes woven in amidst them too, so I found myself laughing a bunch throughout.
There are also knowing nods to Tarantino鈥檚 movies, like the appearance of Red Apple Cigarettes, and Cliff being dubbed 鈥淢r Blond鈥� by one of the Manson girls. And a specific namecheck by the author regarding future movies young Trudi grows up to feature in, which is a fun easter egg.
Tarantino does tend to be overly descriptive though. He can鈥檛 ever just tell you characters go to a bar - he has to describe every single detail of the bar. Like in the Drinker鈥檚 Hall of Fame chapter, where he tells you every photo on the wall and whether they鈥檙e signed or not. Numerous passages, and a fair number of chapters, are like this - giving you too much information that 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 really make a difference, one way or the other to the story, which can be annoying at times.
And then there鈥檚 the story itself which is murky at best. Tarantino rarely gets out of third gear and ambles his way through the novel from beginning to end. It鈥檚 very slow going at times - if you鈥檙e a story-driven reader. If you鈥檙e all about the characters, then you鈥檙e not going to mind. And since this is about the characters, and they鈥檙e written so damn perfectly, then it 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 bother me much. Still, a tighter, more focused, more driven narrative would鈥檝e made this a much better novel, I think.
I鈥檓 gonna pause here and bid adieu to those of you who 丑补惫别苍鈥檛 read this yet and are going to - even those who鈥檝e seen the movie before and intend to read this - so this is the end of my non-spoilery review: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is my favourite novel I鈥檝e read this year, it鈥檚 really entertaining and I recommend it. If you saw the movie and wanted to know more about the characters, this novel provides that. It鈥檚 also, surprisingly, not a straight retelling of the movie, which, in a way, makes it somewhat new - novel, even - and more intriguing for Tarantino fans.
Here on out: SPOILERS! You鈥檒l see why when you read the book.
Okey dokey artichokey?
Right.
One of the fantastic, and unexpected, aspects of the novel is that it mimics the movie鈥檚 subversion of audience expectations - in a completely new way. To those of us who knew about the Tate/LaBianca murders, we thought we knew what to expect once Charlie Manson and the Family were introduced and a pregnant Sharon Tate showed up. Uh oh. Poor Sharon. That bastard Charlie. And then the ending of the movie flipped those expectations as the Family wound up at Sharon鈥檚 fictional neighbour鈥檚 house instead, where Rick, Cliff, and Cliff鈥檚 dog Brandy, brutally thwarted their murderous plans, thus giving the movie a surprising and upbeat (albeit extremely violent) ending.
Tarantino鈥檚 novel of his movie鈥檚 story is different in a number of ways, the most surprising being that, about a quarter of the way into the novel, the movie鈥檚 conclusion gets tossed off in a page or so; the book鈥檚 conclusion is instead a much more lo-fi scene where Rick and Trudi go over the following day鈥檚 scenes on the phone.
And I think that鈥檚 not just brilliant but also a strong selling point of this book: even if you鈥檝e seen the movie, this novel isn鈥檛 that. It鈥檚 not a straightforward retelling of the movie - it鈥檚 a similar story but told differently, which, in a way, makes it a new kind of beast.
There鈥檚 a lot more on the characters in general. We get the story of how Cliff got his dog Brandy; the story of Cliff murdering his wife; there鈥檚 a lot more on Charlie Manson, who basically had a walk-on in the movie, but figures more prominently here; there鈥檚 more background on actors 鈥渢agging鈥� stuntmen (where an actor accidentally - or not - hits a stuntman) which explains why Cliff came to fight Bruce Lee in a studio backlot; and a great deal more on the story of the TV show Lancer, which Rick is shooting.
There鈥檚 also scenes here that were filmed but got cut out of the movie and, as far as I know, 丑补惫别苍鈥檛 been released yet as extras, or possibly incorporated into a future director鈥檚 cut of the movie. Like the amusing scene with Raymond, Jay Sebring鈥檚 English butler, which was filmed with Mr Orange himself, Tim Roth, as the butler, and the final scene of this book, with Rick and Trudi on the phone. If you鈥檙e interested in seeing how those scenes played out, then they鈥檙e all here in this book. That鈥檚 the beauty of the novel: Tarantino 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 have to cut anything to fit a 2.5 hour playing time - he can include them all. But, as I said above, that also does make for a sometimes plodding read (there鈥檚 a reason they were cut to begin with).
Which remains my main criticism of this book: there鈥檚 a wee bit too much here. And this is why I called spoilers above. In the movie, it makes sense to have scenes with Sharon Tate and the Manson Family. We鈥檙e expecting this to culminate in the real life tragedy of Sharon鈥檚 bloody death and Tarantino happily leads us to that supposed conclusion only to hoodwink us at the end.
In this book, because that conclusion is dealt with so briskly and so early in the narrative, never to be revisited, it makes all of the scenes featuring Sharon Tate, Roman Polanski, and the Manson Family, completely pointless. This book has nothing to do with the Manson Family Murders and 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 even pretend to be - so why have anything related to that here?
I suppose the Manson Family stuff is mostly interesting - and Cliff going to the spooky Spahn Ranch to visit the blind George Spahn, in thrall to the Family, remains a great scene - but the Sharon and Roman parts really weren鈥檛. And could鈥檝e been an easy cut.
Because, instead of the Manson Family鈥檚 would-be murderousness, the novel is really about the celebration of actors - particularly lesser known actors - and the even less well-known people behind the camera, like stuntmen. Hence the main characters being a washed up TV star and his dubious stuntman, and why seemingly irrelevant chapters like the one about tragic real life actor Aldo Ray, who became a full blown alcoholic and fell from making studio features to appearing in smaller and sleazier movies over the course of his life, are included.
It鈥檚 why Cliff fights Bruce Lee - and wipes the floor with him. Cliff represents the little guy - the guy who helps make the movies happen but 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 get the adulation that international movie stars like Bruce Lee do. To Tarantino, the unknown stuntman is cooler than the movie star, famous to millions, and this fight symbolises that succinctly. It鈥檚 also why he included so many lesser known actors to modern audiences in his movies like David Carradine and Pam Grier, and, later on, stunt people like Zoe Bell.
This story is also a poignant love letter to filmmaking and filmmakers. The sheer mass of film detail Tarantino rattles off effortlessly throughout speaks to the author鈥檚 passion for the medium. And it鈥檚 poignant too given that Tarantino is one movie away from retirement (he says he鈥檒l only make ten movies and then quit - he counts Kill Bill as one movie, by the by) and will soon be walking away from this business that鈥檚 been so good to him, and he鈥檚 done so much good for.
I say 鈥渞etirement鈥� - he鈥檚 really transitioning careers from movies to books; he鈥檒l continue telling his stories but this is going to be his chosen medium going forward. And, if this novel is an indication, he鈥檒l be equally as successful in the world of books as he was in the movies. Regardless of my criticisms, this is a great book, I had a lot of fun reading it, and I look forward to many more in the years to come. And we鈥檒l still get Tarantino movies too in a way - I鈥檓 sure the film rights to the books will be bought and adapted by other directors.
鈥淥nce Upon a Time鈥︹€� stories tend to close with 鈥淭he End鈥� but this one is a beginning - and a very promising one it is too.
(And yes, I鈥檓 aware that my criticism of verbosity is ironic given that this review turned out to be my longest in quite some time!)
Quentin Tarantino鈥檚 debut novel, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, is, like his films, a banger! It鈥檚 such a fun read. The dialogue is sparkling and the characters are so memorable - aside from child actor Trudi鈥檚 surname (it鈥檚 Frazer), I 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 need to look up any of the characters鈥� full names; they鈥檙e so well realised and seared into my mind that I could easily recall all of them. And that鈥檚 rare in most books, even for the good ones. Tarantino is a consummate storyteller and he excels at this regardless of the medium.
Rick in particular is such an amazing character. He鈥檚 dopey but lovable, and surprisingly smart at times, like when he shines on camera. He鈥檚 vulnerable - an alcoholic as a result of being undiagnosed bipolar - but also very arrogant and proud. Still, I was rooting for him every step of the way.
The movie has this over the book: Leo鈥檚 performance is far better than the novel Rick鈥檚 was. Rick going to town in a fit of self-loathing in the safety of his trailer, and the scene on the set of the western where he pulls off that stellar performance as Caleb the villain, are so good because of DiCaprio鈥檚 acting talent - we only get a whiff of that brilliance in the novel.
Cliff in the novel is a much darker person, especially as Tarantino sheds more light on the character鈥檚 murders, post-military. And yet we still like the guy and never see him as anything less than a good dude. It鈥檚 amazing how Tarantino creates such fully-developed characters. The child actor Trudi and the agent Marvin are also standouts for me.
The likeability of such flawed characters is due in large part to the playful tone of the story (鈥淥nce upon a time鈥︹€�). A lot of dark things happen in this book but there鈥檚 plenty of upbeat, amusing episodes woven in amidst them too, so I found myself laughing a bunch throughout.
There are also knowing nods to Tarantino鈥檚 movies, like the appearance of Red Apple Cigarettes, and Cliff being dubbed 鈥淢r Blond鈥� by one of the Manson girls. And a specific namecheck by the author regarding future movies young Trudi grows up to feature in, which is a fun easter egg.
Tarantino does tend to be overly descriptive though. He can鈥檛 ever just tell you characters go to a bar - he has to describe every single detail of the bar. Like in the Drinker鈥檚 Hall of Fame chapter, where he tells you every photo on the wall and whether they鈥檙e signed or not. Numerous passages, and a fair number of chapters, are like this - giving you too much information that 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 really make a difference, one way or the other to the story, which can be annoying at times.
And then there鈥檚 the story itself which is murky at best. Tarantino rarely gets out of third gear and ambles his way through the novel from beginning to end. It鈥檚 very slow going at times - if you鈥檙e a story-driven reader. If you鈥檙e all about the characters, then you鈥檙e not going to mind. And since this is about the characters, and they鈥檙e written so damn perfectly, then it 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 bother me much. Still, a tighter, more focused, more driven narrative would鈥檝e made this a much better novel, I think.
I鈥檓 gonna pause here and bid adieu to those of you who 丑补惫别苍鈥檛 read this yet and are going to - even those who鈥檝e seen the movie before and intend to read this - so this is the end of my non-spoilery review: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is my favourite novel I鈥檝e read this year, it鈥檚 really entertaining and I recommend it. If you saw the movie and wanted to know more about the characters, this novel provides that. It鈥檚 also, surprisingly, not a straight retelling of the movie, which, in a way, makes it somewhat new - novel, even - and more intriguing for Tarantino fans.
Here on out: SPOILERS! You鈥檒l see why when you read the book.
Okey dokey artichokey?
Right.
One of the fantastic, and unexpected, aspects of the novel is that it mimics the movie鈥檚 subversion of audience expectations - in a completely new way. To those of us who knew about the Tate/LaBianca murders, we thought we knew what to expect once Charlie Manson and the Family were introduced and a pregnant Sharon Tate showed up. Uh oh. Poor Sharon. That bastard Charlie. And then the ending of the movie flipped those expectations as the Family wound up at Sharon鈥檚 fictional neighbour鈥檚 house instead, where Rick, Cliff, and Cliff鈥檚 dog Brandy, brutally thwarted their murderous plans, thus giving the movie a surprising and upbeat (albeit extremely violent) ending.
Tarantino鈥檚 novel of his movie鈥檚 story is different in a number of ways, the most surprising being that, about a quarter of the way into the novel, the movie鈥檚 conclusion gets tossed off in a page or so; the book鈥檚 conclusion is instead a much more lo-fi scene where Rick and Trudi go over the following day鈥檚 scenes on the phone.
And I think that鈥檚 not just brilliant but also a strong selling point of this book: even if you鈥檝e seen the movie, this novel isn鈥檛 that. It鈥檚 not a straightforward retelling of the movie - it鈥檚 a similar story but told differently, which, in a way, makes it a new kind of beast.
There鈥檚 a lot more on the characters in general. We get the story of how Cliff got his dog Brandy; the story of Cliff murdering his wife; there鈥檚 a lot more on Charlie Manson, who basically had a walk-on in the movie, but figures more prominently here; there鈥檚 more background on actors 鈥渢agging鈥� stuntmen (where an actor accidentally - or not - hits a stuntman) which explains why Cliff came to fight Bruce Lee in a studio backlot; and a great deal more on the story of the TV show Lancer, which Rick is shooting.
There鈥檚 also scenes here that were filmed but got cut out of the movie and, as far as I know, 丑补惫别苍鈥檛 been released yet as extras, or possibly incorporated into a future director鈥檚 cut of the movie. Like the amusing scene with Raymond, Jay Sebring鈥檚 English butler, which was filmed with Mr Orange himself, Tim Roth, as the butler, and the final scene of this book, with Rick and Trudi on the phone. If you鈥檙e interested in seeing how those scenes played out, then they鈥檙e all here in this book. That鈥檚 the beauty of the novel: Tarantino 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 have to cut anything to fit a 2.5 hour playing time - he can include them all. But, as I said above, that also does make for a sometimes plodding read (there鈥檚 a reason they were cut to begin with).
Which remains my main criticism of this book: there鈥檚 a wee bit too much here. And this is why I called spoilers above. In the movie, it makes sense to have scenes with Sharon Tate and the Manson Family. We鈥檙e expecting this to culminate in the real life tragedy of Sharon鈥檚 bloody death and Tarantino happily leads us to that supposed conclusion only to hoodwink us at the end.
In this book, because that conclusion is dealt with so briskly and so early in the narrative, never to be revisited, it makes all of the scenes featuring Sharon Tate, Roman Polanski, and the Manson Family, completely pointless. This book has nothing to do with the Manson Family Murders and 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 even pretend to be - so why have anything related to that here?
I suppose the Manson Family stuff is mostly interesting - and Cliff going to the spooky Spahn Ranch to visit the blind George Spahn, in thrall to the Family, remains a great scene - but the Sharon and Roman parts really weren鈥檛. And could鈥檝e been an easy cut.
Because, instead of the Manson Family鈥檚 would-be murderousness, the novel is really about the celebration of actors - particularly lesser known actors - and the even less well-known people behind the camera, like stuntmen. Hence the main characters being a washed up TV star and his dubious stuntman, and why seemingly irrelevant chapters like the one about tragic real life actor Aldo Ray, who became a full blown alcoholic and fell from making studio features to appearing in smaller and sleazier movies over the course of his life, are included.
It鈥檚 why Cliff fights Bruce Lee - and wipes the floor with him. Cliff represents the little guy - the guy who helps make the movies happen but 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 get the adulation that international movie stars like Bruce Lee do. To Tarantino, the unknown stuntman is cooler than the movie star, famous to millions, and this fight symbolises that succinctly. It鈥檚 also why he included so many lesser known actors to modern audiences in his movies like David Carradine and Pam Grier, and, later on, stunt people like Zoe Bell.
This story is also a poignant love letter to filmmaking and filmmakers. The sheer mass of film detail Tarantino rattles off effortlessly throughout speaks to the author鈥檚 passion for the medium. And it鈥檚 poignant too given that Tarantino is one movie away from retirement (he says he鈥檒l only make ten movies and then quit - he counts Kill Bill as one movie, by the by) and will soon be walking away from this business that鈥檚 been so good to him, and he鈥檚 done so much good for.
I say 鈥渞etirement鈥� - he鈥檚 really transitioning careers from movies to books; he鈥檒l continue telling his stories but this is going to be his chosen medium going forward. And, if this novel is an indication, he鈥檒l be equally as successful in the world of books as he was in the movies. Regardless of my criticisms, this is a great book, I had a lot of fun reading it, and I look forward to many more in the years to come. And we鈥檒l still get Tarantino movies too in a way - I鈥檓 sure the film rights to the books will be bought and adapted by other directors.
鈥淥nce Upon a Time鈥︹€� stories tend to close with 鈥淭he End鈥� but this one is a beginning - and a very promising one it is too.
(And yes, I鈥檓 aware that my criticism of verbosity is ironic given that this review turned out to be my longest in quite some time!)
May 20, 2022
Rick Dalton was a TV star whose career is on the decline. His former stunt double Cliff Booth mostly works as Rick鈥檚 driver now. A lot of the book revolves around Rick鈥檚 current job as the villain in the pilot for a new TV western. This book is an entertaining companion piece to the movie. I鈥檓 not sure whether it would be as entertaining if you 丑补惫别苍鈥檛 seen the movie. The climactic scene in the movie is just mentioned in passing in the book. I particularly liked the way that Cliff鈥檚 backstory is fleshed out in the book, including the story of his dog. The author drops the name of every actor from the 1960鈥檚. It brought back pleasant memories. However , I got bored with the recitation of the plot of the TV pilot. There was too much detail for me. The audiobook was narrated very well by Jennifer Jason Leigh, although I do question the choice of using a female narrator for the book about 2 men.
September 17, 2021
Fece un tentativo con Bergman, ma era troppo noioso. Prov貌 con Fellini, e all'inizio lo prese bene. Se solo non ci fossero state le stronzatine alla Charlot che faceva la moglie. Anzi, meglio ancora se la moglie non ci fosse stata proprio. I suoi primi film in bianco e nero, certo, erano proprio belli. Ma dopo che Fellini decise che la vita era un circo, Cliff gli disse: "Arrivederci."
Questo C'era una volta a Hollywood, primo romanzo scritto da Quentin Tarantino, doveva essere in teoria la novelization dell'omonimo nono, e purtroppo forse ultimo, film scritto, sceneggiato e diretto, dal regista americano.
"Hai mai visto un western italiano?" ribatte prontamente Rick, per poi darsi subito la risposta. "Sono orribili! Sono una farsa!"
"E quanti ne hai visti?" obietta Cliff. "Uno? Due?"
"Ne ho visti abbastanza!" afferma Rick con autorevolezza.
"A nessuno piacciono gli spaghetti western."
"Scommetto che c'猫 qualche italiano cui piacciono," dice Cliff a mezza voce.
Il libro si 猫 rivelato essere invece, inaspettatamente e piacevolmente, non tanto un adattamento romanzato dell'ultimo film appartenente alla Trilogia del Revisionismo Storico tarantiniana, quanto un compendio ad esso che ne riprende ed approfondisce considerevolmente trama, vicende e personaggi, aggiungendo ma anche sfrondando qualcosa, il tutto saltando avanti ed indietro nel tempo senza alcuna regola: il finale del film viene anticipato a pag. 119 e liquidato in poche righe con qualche piccola ma fondamentale differenza, stesso dicasi per la scena post-credits che fa capolino da qualche parte prima o dopo, non ricordo bene, o addirittura quando l'amato cane dei coniugi Polanski muore investito, per poi trotterellare scodinzolante nuovamente nello stesso capitolo, quasi come un novello gatto di Schr枚dinger.
Poi Evans e la sua squadra fecero la loro parte, escogitando uno dei migliori lanci pubblicitari dell'epoca e montando un trailer pazzesco
che per certi versi 猫 anche meglio del film. Il risultato fu un enorme successo che rese Polanski non solo uno dei registi pi霉 ricercati di Hollywood, ma anche un'icona della cultura pop (猫 menzionato in una canzone del musical rock
Hair) e il primo vero regista rockstar.
Ho apprezzato molto quando le scene in cui Rick Dalton sta girando l'episodio pilota della serie western Lancer si mescolano fondendosi a quelle che sembrano essere tratte dal copione del suddetto pilot, una sceneggiatura in piena regola dove la storia prende vita trasformandosi in uno splendido racconto a parte.
Quando Cliff aveva chiesto al ragazzo che cosa volesse, quello aveva tirato in ballo Satana, dicendo: "Sono il diavolo, e sono venuto qui a fare il suo lavoro." La polizia di L.A. ipotizz貌 che i tre fossero pieni di acido fino alle orecchie e volessero eseguire un rito satanico. L'unica certezza, comunque, 猫 che quei tre hippie del cazzo avevano scelto la casa sbagliata.
Un racconto che si intreccia alle vite di Rick Dalton e Cliff Booth, un attore in disgrazia alcolizzato e depresso, ed uno stuntman la cui carriera 猫 finita il giorno in cui ha sbattuto contro una macchina sul set de Il Calabrone Verde uno spocchioso ed insopportabile Bruce Lee, in una scena del film che molti hanno odiato e che, raccontata dal punto di vista di Cliff e dello stesso Lee, assume qui connotati molto meno grotteschi.
Lo scontro tra Cliff e Bruce avvenne quando Cliff era sul set del Calabrone Verde a fare la controfigura per Rick. Bruce, come al solito, si stava pavoneggiando con la troupe, quando
qualcuno gli chiese chi avrebbe vinto in un combattimento tra lui e Muhammad Ali. Era la domanda che gli veniva rivolta con maggiore insistenza, e la risposta cambiava a seconda del
suo umore.
Un Bruce Lee rappresentato fra queste pagine non solo come uno sbruffone con la mano pesante verso gli stuntmen che avevano la sfortuna di lavorare con lui, ma anche come un opportunista che insegnava arti marziali alla Hollywood bene per agevolare la propria carriera cinematografica.
Nel suo costume da autista del Calabrone Verde, Bruce assunse una posa spavalda, guard貌 a terra, scosse la testa e poi osserv貌 Cliff, sorridendo. "Quanto ti piace dare aria alla bocca, stuntman. E quanto mi piacerebbe chiudertela, soprattutto davanti ai miei amici. Ma capisci, le mie mani sono registrate
come armi letali. Significa che se facciamo a botte e ti uccido accidentalmente, finisco in galera."
Un po' come faceva Charles Manson, e qui il paragone 猫 geniale ed inquietante, quando forniva donnine allegre a certi cantautori per oliarsi le porte di una carriera in ambito musicale, una carriera mai decollata che lo porter脿 a pianificare una violenta vendetta contro quella Hollywood rea di avere infranto i suoi sogni artistici.
Cliff punt貌 l'indice verso i due. "Entrambi?"
Mike gonfi貌 il petto e disse: "Siamo entrambi italiani. E allora?"
Cliff sorrise, si allung貌 verso di loro e disse: "Sapete quanti italiani ho ucciso?"
Pat si allung貌 a sua volta e sussurr貌: "Scusa?"
"Non avete sentito?" disse Cliff. "Allora ve lo ripeto. Avete idea di quanti italiani ho ucciso?"
Ed i capitoli dedicati a Cliff sono stati una vera sorpresa, rivelatori ogni volta di un passato sempre pi霉 oscuro ed intrigante, che getta il personaggio interpretato in maniera magistrale nel film da Brad Pitt, sotto una luce del tutto differente: una luce oscura ed inquietante.
All'inizio Cliff 猫 incuriosito da questa comunit脿 di ragazze che praticano il libero amore. Ma pi霉 Pussycat gli parla di questo Charlie e dei suoi insegnamenti, e pi霉 gli sembra che questo guru pace e amore non sia altro che un pappone.
Il risultato finale 猫 decisamente strano:听 sembra quasi di leggere la bozza di un romanzo incompiuto, o addirittura di stare guardando a caso una serie di scene eliminate durante la visione degli extra in un DVD o Blu Ray.
"'Sto bastardo 猫 andato vicino tanto cos矛..." dice avvicinando di un centimetro due dita dell'altra mano "...ad avere la parte di Steve McQueen nella Grande fuga."
Curt e Warren reagiscono con grande stupore.
"Non sono andato vicino cosi..." interviene Rick, ripetendo il gesto di Jim. "Ma tanto cos矛," dice allargando le braccia.
Roba da farsi venire veramente il mal di testa, ma se vi lasciate trasportare dalla narrazione, nella quale traspare tutto l'amore dell'autore per il Cinema, la Hollywood degli anni '70 ed i suoi protagonisti, il risultato finale 猫 decisamente soddisfacente, piacevole, e divertente: pagherei oro per vedere Quentin Tarantino tornare nuovamente dietro la cinepresa per girare The Lady in Red, un suo film di gangster realmente esistente nel mondo ucronico e fantastico ritratto fra queste pagine, oppure una director's cut di C'era una volta a Hollywood contenente le scene tagliate presenti in questo libro, prima tra tutte l'incontro tra Rick Dalton e Steve McQueen.
La sua unica nomination all'Oscar come miglior attrice protagonista arriv貌 per The Lady in Red di Quentin Tarantino, un film di gangster ambientato negli anni Trenta e tratto da una sceneggiatura di John Sayles gi脿 portata sullo schermo da Lewis Teague. Frazer interpretava Polly Franklin,
l'ex prostituta di un bordello che diventava il capo di una banda di rapinatori di banche; accanto a lei c'era Michael Madsen nella parte di John Dillinger, il nemico pubblico numero uno.
Ed il finale del libro, pur non essendo il vero finale, 猫 una delle cose migliori che abbia mai letto in vita mia.
Titoli di coda.
Applausi.
June 30, 2021
I started reading this book late afternoon yesterday as soon as it arrived through my door and I鈥檝e just finished it while compiling a list of every movie that was mentioned in the book at the same time (144 films, if you鈥檙e interested in the number).
It鈥檚 hard to compare the book to the film, they exist in almost two separate tales while still retaining an air of familiarity as we know scenes, characters and even some portions of dialogue from the film. The book still uses Tarantino鈥檚 brilliant non-linear story telling but gives insight into those smaller stories from the film like what happened to Cliff鈥檚 wife? how did he get Brandy? and lots more.
A movie nerds dream, this book describes in situations vivid detail with some very niche references to other films. It鈥檚 clear that the research Tarantino did for Once from an historical perspective comes to good use here, with old Hollywood tales and detailed knowledge of shops, roads and bars from the era.
An absolutely enjoyable companion to the film, that digs deeper into the characters of Rick and Cliff helping to flesh out their throughly engaging back stories with tons of detail. I only hope that if Tarantino does stop directing after his 10th movie that we still get books like this, maybe we鈥檒l even get a novel of that long awaited Vega Brothers story? now wouldn鈥檛 that be cool.
It鈥檚 hard to compare the book to the film, they exist in almost two separate tales while still retaining an air of familiarity as we know scenes, characters and even some portions of dialogue from the film. The book still uses Tarantino鈥檚 brilliant non-linear story telling but gives insight into those smaller stories from the film like what happened to Cliff鈥檚 wife? how did he get Brandy? and lots more.
A movie nerds dream, this book describes in situations vivid detail with some very niche references to other films. It鈥檚 clear that the research Tarantino did for Once from an historical perspective comes to good use here, with old Hollywood tales and detailed knowledge of shops, roads and bars from the era.
An absolutely enjoyable companion to the film, that digs deeper into the characters of Rick and Cliff helping to flesh out their throughly engaging back stories with tons of detail. I only hope that if Tarantino does stop directing after his 10th movie that we still get books like this, maybe we鈥檒l even get a novel of that long awaited Vega Brothers story? now wouldn鈥檛 that be cool.
July 2, 2021
This is basically a lot of backstory for the characters in the movie of OUATIH. I liked it mostly. Very readable. Not sure it stands on its own with the movie. Got bored at some of the deep dives into Hollywood references. Not sure I got the overall point of the book but enjoyed it.
August 18, 2021
5 Stars for Once Upon a Time In Hollywood: A Novel (audiobook) by Quentin Tarantino read by Jennifer Jason Leigh.
I鈥檓 a fan of Tarantino鈥檚 movies and of course I liked this story. What really put it over the top for me was the narration. I 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 realize that there was only one narrator till I started to do this review. I was sure that there was at least one more reading. Jennifer Jason Leigh did an amazing job narrating this audiobook. I鈥檓 going to have to see if she has narrated any thing else.
I鈥檓 a fan of Tarantino鈥檚 movies and of course I liked this story. What really put it over the top for me was the narration. I 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 realize that there was only one narrator till I started to do this review. I was sure that there was at least one more reading. Jennifer Jason Leigh did an amazing job narrating this audiobook. I鈥檓 going to have to see if she has narrated any thing else.
May 6, 2023
this book might lack a smidge in narrative propulsion, but it鈥檚 all about the dialogue and the characters. when people speak, it鈥檚 as musical and pleasing to the ear as ever when it comes to tarantino.
the scenes with little trudy and rick are especially excellent and charming. not to mention all the great old hollywood stories and what if鈥檚 that tarantino presents here.
really enjoyed this one.
the scenes with little trudy and rick are especially excellent and charming. not to mention all the great old hollywood stories and what if鈥檚 that tarantino presents here.
really enjoyed this one.
December 5, 2021
It seems pointless to try to critically assess ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, the novel re-imagination of Quentin Tarantino's screenplay and film, by conventional criteria. If you're reading it, you're not thinking about theme or concerning yourself with three-act structure or character arc. You're either into what Tarantino is into, or you'e not. You;'re either turning the pages of this boook with sheer delight, or you're not. Me, I'm into what Tarantino is into, as someone close to his age who shares his interest in a certain corner of a certain cultural time and place. And I turned each page with delight and also a running dread of running out of pages.
So, by that criteria, ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD was a five-star experience for me. By other criteria, I think so too. Was it well-written? Well, the sentences are readable and full of fun stuff, and never lay flat on the page, even though there are long passages that read like Wikipedia entries. Again, if you love the subject, you'll devour the Wikipedia page on the subject, most likely.
So my reactions to ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD take the form of bullet points:
1. Why hasn't this been done more often? Why have unadapted screenplays developed into successful films not also been written as novels by their authors? Why has the work of the tie-in novel always been treated as a piece of downmarket hackwork on the level of the-in McDonalds drinking glasses to downmarket hack writers? Why wouldn't, say, Robert Towne write CHINATOWN, the novel? Or Joe and Ethan Coen write THE BIG LEBOWSKI, the novel? Why would that have been seen as an undesirable thing to do, or even beneath their artistic dignity? Tarantino really shouldn't be the first owner of a story for the screen to seize upon this idea.
2. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is not a faithful reproduction of the screenplay. That would be boring, and I suspect Tarantino knew it. No, he simply developed the parts of ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD that he personally found most interesting, as is his perfect right to do, and downplayed the stuff he was less interested in. You won't find much about the big showdown between Cliff Booth and Rick Dalton and the murderous Manson disciples bent on "doing the Devil's business." But you will find even more interesting stuff, like Charles Manson's obsession with becoming a produced singer-songwriter rock star. Like Cliff Booth's history of homicide. Like just how much Rick Dalton had on the line when he did that guest spot as the villain on the pilot episode of LANCER in February 1969, and how his character's own challenges brought painful weight to bear on his own. You'll get to see more of Trudi Frazier, the little girl who plays the Lancer daughter, and not just during her shooting days with Rick, but what the decades ahead hold for her. (Hint: She is nominated three times for an Academy Award, her final time in 1999 as the female lead in "Quentin Tarantino's remake of John Sayles's script for the gangster epic The Lady In Red," opposite Michael Madsen as John Dillinger. She lost to Hilary Swank forBoys Don't Cry."
3. For those of you who have problems with how Quentin Tarantino depicts women, you won't find anything in this novel to change your mind. ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD is a story in which men are men and women are precious gems, bitches or whores, and no apologies are made for that mindset. Whether that's a reflection of the mindset of Tarantino or the mindset of its time and place is an argument I will leave to others. I certainly cringed at a lot of these passages, particularly the ones in which Cliff Booth doesn't feel particularly bad about inflicting a particularly nasty and lingering death on his wife.
4. Think about something: Of the novels you thunk are great, how amny do you think are great in part or sum because they're fun? Can a great novel be fun? Can a story that tickles you almost nonstop also be one that makes you think and engage with deeper with themes? Or are those two ideas necessarily exclusive? My experience with ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD was this: I was tickled to my toes,, and I'm thinking a lot about how art is made, how entertainment is manufactured, and how dreams and nurtured and neglected and often sacrificed on thei= altar of the devils that also inhabit the vessel that cultivate them. And yet, it was a bottomless bag of buttered and salted popcorn. I don't understand how those things can co-exist; I just know that they do, and I suspect it's because Quentin Tarantino is so filled with joy about what he gets to do and do well that you can't help getting caught up in the current of his sunlit obsessions. I guess I don't have a problem with that. Not in a world where greatness seems to ride dark-shadowed shotgun alongside grimness. That may give the story gravitas, but it doesn't give it delight.
5. ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD is proof of something I've long believed: Stars aren't interesting; fallen stars are. As are people on their periphery. The struggle is baked in; the three-act structure practically builds itself. To wit, to borrow an example from Rick and Cliff's time: I wouldn't much be interested in a biography of Paul Newman and Robert Redford, because they have a flat arc once they became stars, because they became stars. But I'd be utterly absorbed by a biography of, say, George Peppard or James Stacy, both of who have incredibly interesting true stories threaded into their downfalls from short-lived stardom. Stars play interesting people, but that doesn't make THEM interesting people. People who have to struggle to overcome themselves to keep one nostril afloat? Their stories are the ones I want. And I love that Quentin Tarantino knows this, and agrees.
6. ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD also passes my personal two-part test for a great novel:
a) Is it insanely quotable? Is it all you can do to keep from copying-and-pasting whole passages and sharing them with the world?
b) Would you love the story if it were twice as long? Would you be happily immersed in the world it inhabits for as long as your imagination 鈥� and the that of the creator 鈥� could possibly take it?
For me, the answer to both questions is "yes." And for those reasons above all, ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD is a great novel in my eyes.
So, by that criteria, ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD was a five-star experience for me. By other criteria, I think so too. Was it well-written? Well, the sentences are readable and full of fun stuff, and never lay flat on the page, even though there are long passages that read like Wikipedia entries. Again, if you love the subject, you'll devour the Wikipedia page on the subject, most likely.
So my reactions to ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD take the form of bullet points:
1. Why hasn't this been done more often? Why have unadapted screenplays developed into successful films not also been written as novels by their authors? Why has the work of the tie-in novel always been treated as a piece of downmarket hackwork on the level of the-in McDonalds drinking glasses to downmarket hack writers? Why wouldn't, say, Robert Towne write CHINATOWN, the novel? Or Joe and Ethan Coen write THE BIG LEBOWSKI, the novel? Why would that have been seen as an undesirable thing to do, or even beneath their artistic dignity? Tarantino really shouldn't be the first owner of a story for the screen to seize upon this idea.
2. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is not a faithful reproduction of the screenplay. That would be boring, and I suspect Tarantino knew it. No, he simply developed the parts of ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD that he personally found most interesting, as is his perfect right to do, and downplayed the stuff he was less interested in. You won't find much about the big showdown between Cliff Booth and Rick Dalton and the murderous Manson disciples bent on "doing the Devil's business." But you will find even more interesting stuff, like Charles Manson's obsession with becoming a produced singer-songwriter rock star. Like Cliff Booth's history of homicide. Like just how much Rick Dalton had on the line when he did that guest spot as the villain on the pilot episode of LANCER in February 1969, and how his character's own challenges brought painful weight to bear on his own. You'll get to see more of Trudi Frazier, the little girl who plays the Lancer daughter, and not just during her shooting days with Rick, but what the decades ahead hold for her. (Hint: She is nominated three times for an Academy Award, her final time in 1999 as the female lead in "Quentin Tarantino's remake of John Sayles's script for the gangster epic The Lady In Red," opposite Michael Madsen as John Dillinger. She lost to Hilary Swank forBoys Don't Cry."
3. For those of you who have problems with how Quentin Tarantino depicts women, you won't find anything in this novel to change your mind. ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD is a story in which men are men and women are precious gems, bitches or whores, and no apologies are made for that mindset. Whether that's a reflection of the mindset of Tarantino or the mindset of its time and place is an argument I will leave to others. I certainly cringed at a lot of these passages, particularly the ones in which Cliff Booth doesn't feel particularly bad about inflicting a particularly nasty and lingering death on his wife.
4. Think about something: Of the novels you thunk are great, how amny do you think are great in part or sum because they're fun? Can a great novel be fun? Can a story that tickles you almost nonstop also be one that makes you think and engage with deeper with themes? Or are those two ideas necessarily exclusive? My experience with ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD was this: I was tickled to my toes,, and I'm thinking a lot about how art is made, how entertainment is manufactured, and how dreams and nurtured and neglected and often sacrificed on thei= altar of the devils that also inhabit the vessel that cultivate them. And yet, it was a bottomless bag of buttered and salted popcorn. I don't understand how those things can co-exist; I just know that they do, and I suspect it's because Quentin Tarantino is so filled with joy about what he gets to do and do well that you can't help getting caught up in the current of his sunlit obsessions. I guess I don't have a problem with that. Not in a world where greatness seems to ride dark-shadowed shotgun alongside grimness. That may give the story gravitas, but it doesn't give it delight.
5. ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD is proof of something I've long believed: Stars aren't interesting; fallen stars are. As are people on their periphery. The struggle is baked in; the three-act structure practically builds itself. To wit, to borrow an example from Rick and Cliff's time: I wouldn't much be interested in a biography of Paul Newman and Robert Redford, because they have a flat arc once they became stars, because they became stars. But I'd be utterly absorbed by a biography of, say, George Peppard or James Stacy, both of who have incredibly interesting true stories threaded into their downfalls from short-lived stardom. Stars play interesting people, but that doesn't make THEM interesting people. People who have to struggle to overcome themselves to keep one nostril afloat? Their stories are the ones I want. And I love that Quentin Tarantino knows this, and agrees.
6. ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD also passes my personal two-part test for a great novel:
a) Is it insanely quotable? Is it all you can do to keep from copying-and-pasting whole passages and sharing them with the world?
b) Would you love the story if it were twice as long? Would you be happily immersed in the world it inhabits for as long as your imagination 鈥� and the that of the creator 鈥� could possibly take it?
For me, the answer to both questions is "yes." And for those reasons above all, ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD is a great novel in my eyes.
June 30, 2021
Found this to be absolutely delightful. The Aldo Ray chapter! The Cliff Booth back story! The alternate versions of and perspectives on events from the film! The deep dive into the careers of journeyman filmmakers and '70s television! I probably won't revisit this as much as I have the film itself, but I will revisit this for sure. God, what a fucking gift.
September 15, 2021
Loved the movie. . .and loved the novel. Lots of moments from the movie in Quentin Tarantino's novel, but lots of new material. And the ending? As much of a surprise in the novel as the movie -- and different! I listened to thee audiobook and savored every syllable of Jennifer Jason Leigh's magnificent narration.
January 27, 2024
Ersch眉tternde sexuelle Abgr眉nde eines Prominenten
Ausf眉hrlicher, vielleicht begr眉ndeter auf
Die Frage lautet: Wieviel bleibt von dem Roman 鈥濫s war einmal in Hollywood鈥� 眉brig, wenn man die W枚rter 鈥瀕ange Beine鈥�, 鈥濵inirock鈥�, 鈥瀡erdammt鈥�, 鈥濻teve McQueen鈥�, 鈥濰ippie鈥�, und alle m枚glichen Varianten und Beschimpfungen weiblicher Geschlechtsteile und sexueller Ausrichtungen abzieht? Von der Ein-Sterne-Bewertung kann man schon sehen, nicht viel. Der Inhalt ist f眉rchterlich schnell umrissen. Es handelt sich um Hollywood in den Sechzigern und Siebzigern. Es handelt von Western. Es handelt von einem abgehalfterten Serien-Schauspieler und seinem Stuntdouble. Es handelt von m盲nnlichen Spr眉cheklopfern, notgeilen Blicken, Pantoffelheldgehabe und die W眉nsche, ganz gro脽 rauszukommen.
Aber inwiefern handelt es sich um einen Roman? Einen Plot gibt es nicht. Der Protagonist, Rick Dalton, versucht sich selbst zu erfinden und entschlie脽t sich, Italo-Western zu drehen, und sich ein Beispiel an seinem Nachbarn, Roman Polanski, zu nehmen, indem er mit vorpubert盲ren M盲dchen flirtet. Charles Bukowski und Michel Houellebecq in ihrer transgressiven und regressiven Fiktionalit盲t und Geschmacklosigkeit nacheifernd, gibt es Szenen in Quentin Tarantinos Roman, die gef盲hrlich nahe an der Schmerzgrenze des Legalen in Sachen Kindesmissbrauch gehen. F眉r viele wird hiermit die Entscheidung, dieses Buch nicht zu kaufen, bereits gefallen sein. Wer gerne noch weitere Gr眉nde genannt bekommen will, dem seien diese genannt. Tarantinos Roman ist qu盲lend und g盲hnend langweilig. Der eigentliche Plot ist das N盲hk盲stchengeplaudere eines ehemaligen Videothekars, der vorgibt, sich vorz眉glich im Who-is-Who der Hollywoodfilmwelt auszukennen. Exemplarisch f眉r die vielen Pseudo-Informationen, die so uninteressant sind, dass niemand sie im Ernst nachpr眉fen wird, hier ein Ausschnitt:
Die Episode der dreizehnten Staffel, in der James Stacy auftrat, trug den Titel 禄Schrei nach Rache芦. Sie wurde von Calvin Clements, einem der gro脽en Westernserienautoren seiner Zeit, geschrieben und von Richard C. Sarafian verfilmt, einem talentierten Serienregisseur, der kurz vor dem Sprung ins Filmfach stand und sp盲ter Kultklassiker wie 禄Fluchtpunkt San Francisco芦 und 禄Ein Mann in der Wildnis芦 drehen w眉rde (Barry Newman ist in 禄Fluchtpunkt San Francisco芦 mit wei脽em Hemd und Jewfro solide als Kowalski, der Fahrer des Dodge Challenger, aber James Stacy w盲re deutlich hei脽er und deutlich cooler gewesen).
Seitenlang geht es um Verbindungen, Netzwerke, Besetzungslisten, Regisseure, ihre Vorlieben, ihre Erfolge und Misserfolge. Stellenweise 眉berkommt einen das Gef眉hl, jemand h盲tte ein Filmlexikon durcheinandergew眉rfelt und hier und da den Namen Rick Dalton eingef眉gt, um einen Plot zu imitieren. Sprachlich handelt es sich um unterstes Niveau. Permanent werden ein und dieselben Dinge paraphrasiert. Mehrere Anekdoten werden vom Erz盲hler, von den Protagonisten, und dann nochmals von den beschriebenen Filmszenen selbst wiedergegeben. Beispielsweise wie Rick Dalton die Hauptrolle Steve McQueens in dem Film 禄Gesprengte Ketten芦 beinahe bekommen h盲tte. Witz stellt sich nicht ein. Pseudokritik am oberfl盲chlichen Umgang und Gehabe in Hollywood darein zu lesen, mag wer will. Es ist schlicht und ergreifend Einfallslosigkeit, und zwar 眉ber das Ertr盲gliche hinaus.
Man kann getrost den Autor wieder f眉r sich sprechen lassen, als Fazit sozusagen:
[Rick Dalton und James 鈥欽im鈥� Stacy] fangen an, sich 眉ber das Lieblingsthema attraktiver m盲nnlicher Schauspieler zu unterhalten: Muschis. Jim will wissen, ob Rick Virna Lisi gev枚gelt hat, und Rick will wissen, ob Jim Hayley Mills gev枚gelt hat. Hat Jim nicht, und wenn doch, spricht er nicht dar眉ber. Rick auch nicht, aber er hat es versucht. Rick erz盲hlt ihm, dass er Yvonne De Carlo und Faith Domergue gev枚gelt hat, als sie bei 禄Bounty Law芦 dabei waren. De Carlo hat er im Grunde gev枚gelt, weil er Elizabeth Taylor v枚geln wollte, seit er zw枚lf war.
Wer jetzt noch Lust hat, diesen Roman zu lesen, der wird nicht entt盲uscht werden. Wer nun doch lieber Abstand davon nehmen m枚chte, der findet mit Henry Miller 鈥炩€� und Jean Genet 鈥炩€� oder mit Louis-Ferdinand C茅lines 鈥炩€�, oder James Baldwins 鈥炩€� mehr als 盲quivalenten Ersatz. Er findet Literatur. 鈥濫s war einmal in Hollywood鈥� ist es beim besten Willen nicht.
Ausf眉hrlicher, vielleicht begr眉ndeter auf
Die Frage lautet: Wieviel bleibt von dem Roman 鈥濫s war einmal in Hollywood鈥� 眉brig, wenn man die W枚rter 鈥瀕ange Beine鈥�, 鈥濵inirock鈥�, 鈥瀡erdammt鈥�, 鈥濻teve McQueen鈥�, 鈥濰ippie鈥�, und alle m枚glichen Varianten und Beschimpfungen weiblicher Geschlechtsteile und sexueller Ausrichtungen abzieht? Von der Ein-Sterne-Bewertung kann man schon sehen, nicht viel. Der Inhalt ist f眉rchterlich schnell umrissen. Es handelt sich um Hollywood in den Sechzigern und Siebzigern. Es handelt von Western. Es handelt von einem abgehalfterten Serien-Schauspieler und seinem Stuntdouble. Es handelt von m盲nnlichen Spr眉cheklopfern, notgeilen Blicken, Pantoffelheldgehabe und die W眉nsche, ganz gro脽 rauszukommen.
Aber inwiefern handelt es sich um einen Roman? Einen Plot gibt es nicht. Der Protagonist, Rick Dalton, versucht sich selbst zu erfinden und entschlie脽t sich, Italo-Western zu drehen, und sich ein Beispiel an seinem Nachbarn, Roman Polanski, zu nehmen, indem er mit vorpubert盲ren M盲dchen flirtet. Charles Bukowski und Michel Houellebecq in ihrer transgressiven und regressiven Fiktionalit盲t und Geschmacklosigkeit nacheifernd, gibt es Szenen in Quentin Tarantinos Roman, die gef盲hrlich nahe an der Schmerzgrenze des Legalen in Sachen Kindesmissbrauch gehen. F眉r viele wird hiermit die Entscheidung, dieses Buch nicht zu kaufen, bereits gefallen sein. Wer gerne noch weitere Gr眉nde genannt bekommen will, dem seien diese genannt. Tarantinos Roman ist qu盲lend und g盲hnend langweilig. Der eigentliche Plot ist das N盲hk盲stchengeplaudere eines ehemaligen Videothekars, der vorgibt, sich vorz眉glich im Who-is-Who der Hollywoodfilmwelt auszukennen. Exemplarisch f眉r die vielen Pseudo-Informationen, die so uninteressant sind, dass niemand sie im Ernst nachpr眉fen wird, hier ein Ausschnitt:
Die Episode der dreizehnten Staffel, in der James Stacy auftrat, trug den Titel 禄Schrei nach Rache芦. Sie wurde von Calvin Clements, einem der gro脽en Westernserienautoren seiner Zeit, geschrieben und von Richard C. Sarafian verfilmt, einem talentierten Serienregisseur, der kurz vor dem Sprung ins Filmfach stand und sp盲ter Kultklassiker wie 禄Fluchtpunkt San Francisco芦 und 禄Ein Mann in der Wildnis芦 drehen w眉rde (Barry Newman ist in 禄Fluchtpunkt San Francisco芦 mit wei脽em Hemd und Jewfro solide als Kowalski, der Fahrer des Dodge Challenger, aber James Stacy w盲re deutlich hei脽er und deutlich cooler gewesen).
Seitenlang geht es um Verbindungen, Netzwerke, Besetzungslisten, Regisseure, ihre Vorlieben, ihre Erfolge und Misserfolge. Stellenweise 眉berkommt einen das Gef眉hl, jemand h盲tte ein Filmlexikon durcheinandergew眉rfelt und hier und da den Namen Rick Dalton eingef眉gt, um einen Plot zu imitieren. Sprachlich handelt es sich um unterstes Niveau. Permanent werden ein und dieselben Dinge paraphrasiert. Mehrere Anekdoten werden vom Erz盲hler, von den Protagonisten, und dann nochmals von den beschriebenen Filmszenen selbst wiedergegeben. Beispielsweise wie Rick Dalton die Hauptrolle Steve McQueens in dem Film 禄Gesprengte Ketten芦 beinahe bekommen h盲tte. Witz stellt sich nicht ein. Pseudokritik am oberfl盲chlichen Umgang und Gehabe in Hollywood darein zu lesen, mag wer will. Es ist schlicht und ergreifend Einfallslosigkeit, und zwar 眉ber das Ertr盲gliche hinaus.
Man kann getrost den Autor wieder f眉r sich sprechen lassen, als Fazit sozusagen:
[Rick Dalton und James 鈥欽im鈥� Stacy] fangen an, sich 眉ber das Lieblingsthema attraktiver m盲nnlicher Schauspieler zu unterhalten: Muschis. Jim will wissen, ob Rick Virna Lisi gev枚gelt hat, und Rick will wissen, ob Jim Hayley Mills gev枚gelt hat. Hat Jim nicht, und wenn doch, spricht er nicht dar眉ber. Rick auch nicht, aber er hat es versucht. Rick erz盲hlt ihm, dass er Yvonne De Carlo und Faith Domergue gev枚gelt hat, als sie bei 禄Bounty Law芦 dabei waren. De Carlo hat er im Grunde gev枚gelt, weil er Elizabeth Taylor v枚geln wollte, seit er zw枚lf war.
Wer jetzt noch Lust hat, diesen Roman zu lesen, der wird nicht entt盲uscht werden. Wer nun doch lieber Abstand davon nehmen m枚chte, der findet mit Henry Miller 鈥炩€� und Jean Genet 鈥炩€� oder mit Louis-Ferdinand C茅lines 鈥炩€�, oder James Baldwins 鈥炩€� mehr als 盲quivalenten Ersatz. Er findet Literatur. 鈥濫s war einmal in Hollywood鈥� ist es beim besten Willen nicht.
August 5, 2021
I had so been looking forward to reading this book and it was an IMMENSE disappointment. Given that I am not a masochist, I did not finish the book but rather, struggled through as much of it as I could stand.
Each of the chapters that I read was quite long, thousands of pages it seemed. One entire chapter consisted of a conversation between a reasonably washed-up actor and an agent who felt that he could save the guy's career. It was, perhaps, the most boring dialogue that I have ever read - and from Quentin Tarantino, no less. Another chapter consisted entirely of the musings of the washed-up actor about movies that he had seen in his life and his reaction to them. That was the most painful chapter that I read.
I cannot recommend this book to anyone, even those that I hate (well, maybe one or two of them but they are not on 欧宝娱乐).
Over and Out
Each of the chapters that I read was quite long, thousands of pages it seemed. One entire chapter consisted of a conversation between a reasonably washed-up actor and an agent who felt that he could save the guy's career. It was, perhaps, the most boring dialogue that I have ever read - and from Quentin Tarantino, no less. Another chapter consisted entirely of the musings of the washed-up actor about movies that he had seen in his life and his reaction to them. That was the most painful chapter that I read.
I cannot recommend this book to anyone, even those that I hate (well, maybe one or two of them but they are not on 欧宝娱乐).
Over and Out
March 23, 2025
Many a time I've seen a film based on a novel but I believe this is the first time I've read a novel based on a film. Good that Tarantino did make some adjustments so that it doesn't stick 100% to the film, otherwise what's the point. There is loads more film talk - movies, actors and TV of the time and before - that didn't feature in the film; fictional child actor Trudi Fraser who plays Mirabella Lancer features more here; Cliff gets an interesting backstory (getting away with murder more than once for one thing); whilst there is also a completely different ending - no Cliff bashing a hippie girl's head in or Rick flamethrower frying to a crisp another, but there is quite a bit of dialogue that was lifted straight from the film. Tarantino's overenthusiasm for pop culture trivia throughout the novel does become a little irritating but there is still a lot I loved about this pulpy novelisation - in places it's just so addictive, and for fans who want to relive the experience of the film it's well worth it. Being such a brilliant screenwriter I'd like to see him write a completely original novel when he's done with directing.
August 28, 2021
丿乇 賴丕賱蹖賵賵丿賽 賯乇賳 亘蹖爻鬲賲貙 乇蹖讴 亘丕夭蹖诏乇 賲毓乇賵賮 賵 賲丨亘賵亘蹖鈥屫池�. 讴賽賱蹖賮 賴賲 賴賲乇丕賴 賵 賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇 亘丿賱讴丕乇 丕賵爻鬲. 亘賴 賲乇賵乇 夭賲丕賳 賵 亘丕 亘丕賱丕 乇賮鬲賳 爻賳 乇蹖讴貙 賲丨亘賵亘蹖鬲卮 賴賲 丌乇丕賲 丌乇丕賲 讴賲 賲蹖卮賴 鬲丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 乇賵夭蹖 蹖讴 賳賮乇 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 讴丕乇 丿乇 爻蹖賳賲丕蹖 丕蹖鬲丕賱蹖丕 乇賵 亘賴 乇蹖讴 賲蹖丿賴 賵...
丕蹖賳讴賴 讴丕乇诏乇丿丕賳蹖 蹖讴 賮蹖賱賲 賯卮賳诏 賵 亘丕 賲賵囟賵毓蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 乇賵 亘賴 賴賲乇丕賴 亘丕夭蹖诏乇賴丕蹖 爻乇卮賳丕爻蹖 亘爻丕夭賴 賵 趩賳丿 爻丕賱 亘毓丿 丕賵賱蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 禺賵丿卮 乇賵 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 賴賲賵賳 賮蹖賱賲 爻蹖賳賲丕蹖蹖 賵賱蹖 亘丕 噩夭卅蹖丕鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賳賵蹖爻賴 賵丕賯毓丕賸 讴丕乇 禺蹖賱蹖 賲賴賲蹖賴 讴賴 丌賯丕蹖 鬲丕乇丕賳鬲蹖賳賵 丕夭 倬爻卮 亘乇 丕賵賲丿賴. 乇賲丕賳 "乇賵夭蹖 乇賵夭诏丕乇蹖 丿乇 賴丕賱蹖賵賵丿" 亘乇诏乇賮鬲賴 丕夭 賮蹖賱賲蹖 亘丕 賴賲蹖賳 賳丕賲賴!... 賲賲讴賳賴 禺蹖賱蹖鈥屬囏� 丕蹖賳 賮蹖賱賲 爻蹖賳賲丕蹖蹖 乇賵 丿蹖丿賴 亘丕卮賳丿 賵 丕賱亘鬲賴 賳馗乇丕鬲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賮蹖賱賲卮 亘爻蹖丕乇 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲賴. 毓丿賴鈥屫й� 讴丕賲賱丕賸 丿賵爻鬲卮 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 丕賲丕 亘毓囟蹖鈥屬囏� 賴賲 賳馗乇丕鬲 賲賳賮蹖 丿乇 賲賵乇丿卮 诏賮鬲賳丿.
丕賲丕 讴鬲丕亘卮 禺蹖賱蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 鬲乇賴. 讴賱蹖鬲 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賵 賲丕噩乇丕賴丕 賵 卮禺氐蹖鬲鈥屬囏� 賴賲賵賳 讴爻丕賳蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 鬲賵蹖 賮蹖賱賲 賴賲 亘賵丿賳丿 丕賲丕 噩夭卅蹖丕鬲 禺蹖賱蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇賴 賵 蹖讴爻乇蹖 丕鬲賮丕賯丕鬲 賵 乇賵賳丿 賴丕蹖蹖 丿乇 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丿蹖丿賴 賲蹖卮賴 讴賴 鬲賵蹖 賮蹖賱賲 賳亘賵丿賴. 賲賲讴賳賴 禺蹖賱蹖 丕夭 讴丕爻鬲蹖 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 鬲賵蹖 賮蹖賱賲 亘賵丿賴 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 卮丿賴 賳馗乇丕鬲 賲賳賮蹖 丿乇 賲賵乇丿卮 丿蹖丿賴 亘卮賴貙 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕 丌賵乇丿賳 蹖讴 爻乇蹖 噩夭卅蹖丕鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘丕毓孬 卮丿賴 讴賴 丕賵賳 囟毓賮 賴丕 賴賲 讴賲鬲乇 亘卮賳 賵 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 亘鬲賵賳賴 賱匕鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 丕夭 禺賵賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘亘乇賴.
禺亘貙 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 鬲賵賳爻鬲賴 亘丕卮賲 鬲賮丕賵鬲 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賮蹖賱賲 賵 讴鬲丕亘 丿丕乇賳丿 乇賵 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲禺鬲氐乇蹖 亘丿賲. 丕夭 卮禺氐蹖鬲 倬乇丿丕夭蹖 賴丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵卮賲 丕賵賲丿 賵 賵丕賯毓丕 賲蹖诏賲 丕诏乇 賮蹖賱賲 乇賵 賴賲 賳丿蹖丿賴 亘丕卮蹖丿 丕蹖賳賯丿乇 丕蹖賳 丌賯丕蹖 讴丕乇诏乇丿丕賳 亘丕 讴鬲丕亘蹖 讴賴 賳賵卮鬲賴貙 賮賵賯 丕賱毓丕丿賴 賯卮賳诏 噩賲賱賴 亘賳丿蹖 讴乇丿賴 賵 鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 鬲賵賳爻鬲賴 卮禺氐蹖鬲鈥屬囏� 乇賵 讴丕賲賱丕賸 賵丕囟丨 亘賴 賲禺丕胤亘卮 賳卮賵賳 丿丕丿賴 讴賴 亘賴 丕賳丿丕夭賴 讴丕賮蹖 丕夭 丿丕爻鬲丕賳卮 賱匕鬲 賲蹖亘乇蹖丿.
丕賱亘鬲賴 丕蹖賳 賳讴鬲賴 乇賵 賴賲 丕囟丕賮賴 讴賳賲 讴賴 賲賳 賵賯鬲蹖 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 禺賵賳丿賲 亘乇丕蹖 亘丕乇 丿賵賲 亘毓丿 丕夭 賲丿鬲賴丕 乇賮鬲賲 賵 賮蹖賱賲 乇賵 丿賵亘丕乇賴 丿蹖丿賲. 賮蹖賱賲 乇賵 賴賲 禺蹖賱蹖 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕卮鬲賲 丕賲丕 丨賯蹖賯鬲丕 讴鬲丕亘 噩匕丕亘 鬲乇賴... 卮禺氐蹖鬲 "讴賱蹖賮" 禺蹖賱蹖 禺蹖賱蹖 禺賵亘賴!!! 讴丕乇丕讴鬲乇 賲賵乇丿 毓賱丕賯賴鈥屫з� 鬲賵 賮蹖賱賲 賵 讴鬲丕亘 亘賵丿. (亘丕夭蹖诏乇卮 賴賲 噩賳丕亘 亘乇丿 倬蹖鬲 亘夭乇诏 賴爻鬲賳丿)
丕诏乇 亘禺賵丕賲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 跇丕賳乇 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕賴丕鬲賵賳 氐丨亘鬲 讴賳賲 賲蹖卮賴 诏賮鬲 蹖讴鈥屫堌必й屰� "讴賱丕爻蹖讴賽 賲丿乇賳" 賲丨爻賵亘 賲蹖卮賴 賵 賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 乇賵丕賳卮賳丕爻蹖鈥屫й� 讴賴 丿丕乇賴 胤賳夭 禺蹖賱蹖 賯卮賳诏蹖 賴賲 鬲賵卮 诏賳噩賵賳丿賴 卮丿賴 讴賴 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賴丕 亘丕毓孬 禺賳丿賴鈥屫堎� 賲蹖卮賴.
丿乇 讴賱 讴賴 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵亘蹖 亘賵丿貙 丕夭 禺賵賳丿賳卮 賱匕鬲 亘乇丿賲 賵 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賲蹖讴賳賲 丕诏乇 賮蹖賱賲卮 乇賵 丿蹖丿蹖丿 賵 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕卮鬲蹖丿 丨鬲賲丕賸 讴鬲丕亘卮 乇賵 賴賲 亘禺賵賳蹖丿 趩賵賳 噩夭卅蹖丕鬲 禺蹖賱蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇賴. 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 賴賲 賮蹖賱賲 乇賵 丿賵爻鬲 賳丿丕卮鬲蹖丿 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 賲蹖鬲賵賳蹖丿 蹖讴 賮乇氐鬲 丿蹖诏賴 亘賴卮 亘丿蹖丿 賵 亘丕 禺賵賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘卮 賯賵賱鈥� 賲蹖丿賲 鬲丕 丨丿 禺蹖賱蹖 夭蹖丕丿蹖 丕賵賳 丨爻蹖 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 卮丿 丕夭 賮蹖賱賲 賱匕鬲 賳亘乇蹖丿貙 噩亘乇丕賳 亘卮賴!
丿乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲乇噩賲賴 賴賲 賲蹖诏賲 讴賴 賵丕賯毓丕賸 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 禺賵亘蹖 亘賵丿 賵 亘爻蹖丕乇 乇賵賵賳 賳賵卮鬲賴 卮丿賴. 賲鬲乇噩賲 丕賵賳 丨爻 賵 丨丕賱 胤賳夭蹖 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘賴 讴丕乇 亘乇丿賴 乇賵 亘賴 禺賵亘蹖 亘賴 賲丕 賲賳鬲賯賱 賲蹖讴賳賴. 賴賲蹖賳 丿蹖诏賴! 丕诏乇 賯氐丿 丿丕乇蹖丿 亘禺賵賳蹖丿貙 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 讴賴 丕夭卮 賱匕鬲 亘亘乇蹖丿.
丕蹖賳讴賴 讴丕乇诏乇丿丕賳蹖 蹖讴 賮蹖賱賲 賯卮賳诏 賵 亘丕 賲賵囟賵毓蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 乇賵 亘賴 賴賲乇丕賴 亘丕夭蹖诏乇賴丕蹖 爻乇卮賳丕爻蹖 亘爻丕夭賴 賵 趩賳丿 爻丕賱 亘毓丿 丕賵賱蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 禺賵丿卮 乇賵 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 賴賲賵賳 賮蹖賱賲 爻蹖賳賲丕蹖蹖 賵賱蹖 亘丕 噩夭卅蹖丕鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賳賵蹖爻賴 賵丕賯毓丕賸 讴丕乇 禺蹖賱蹖 賲賴賲蹖賴 讴賴 丌賯丕蹖 鬲丕乇丕賳鬲蹖賳賵 丕夭 倬爻卮 亘乇 丕賵賲丿賴. 乇賲丕賳 "乇賵夭蹖 乇賵夭诏丕乇蹖 丿乇 賴丕賱蹖賵賵丿" 亘乇诏乇賮鬲賴 丕夭 賮蹖賱賲蹖 亘丕 賴賲蹖賳 賳丕賲賴!... 賲賲讴賳賴 禺蹖賱蹖鈥屬囏� 丕蹖賳 賮蹖賱賲 爻蹖賳賲丕蹖蹖 乇賵 丿蹖丿賴 亘丕卮賳丿 賵 丕賱亘鬲賴 賳馗乇丕鬲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賮蹖賱賲卮 亘爻蹖丕乇 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲賴. 毓丿賴鈥屫й� 讴丕賲賱丕賸 丿賵爻鬲卮 丿丕卮鬲賳丿 丕賲丕 亘毓囟蹖鈥屬囏� 賴賲 賳馗乇丕鬲 賲賳賮蹖 丿乇 賲賵乇丿卮 诏賮鬲賳丿.
丕賲丕 讴鬲丕亘卮 禺蹖賱蹖 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 鬲乇賴. 讴賱蹖鬲 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賵 賲丕噩乇丕賴丕 賵 卮禺氐蹖鬲鈥屬囏� 賴賲賵賳 讴爻丕賳蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 鬲賵蹖 賮蹖賱賲 賴賲 亘賵丿賳丿 丕賲丕 噩夭卅蹖丕鬲 禺蹖賱蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇賴 賵 蹖讴爻乇蹖 丕鬲賮丕賯丕鬲 賵 乇賵賳丿 賴丕蹖蹖 丿乇 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丿蹖丿賴 賲蹖卮賴 讴賴 鬲賵蹖 賮蹖賱賲 賳亘賵丿賴. 賲賲讴賳賴 禺蹖賱蹖 丕夭 讴丕爻鬲蹖 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 鬲賵蹖 賮蹖賱賲 亘賵丿賴 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 卮丿賴 賳馗乇丕鬲 賲賳賮蹖 丿乇 賲賵乇丿卮 丿蹖丿賴 亘卮賴貙 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕 丌賵乇丿賳 蹖讴 爻乇蹖 噩夭卅蹖丕鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘丕毓孬 卮丿賴 讴賴 丕賵賳 囟毓賮 賴丕 賴賲 讴賲鬲乇 亘卮賳 賵 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 亘鬲賵賳賴 賱匕鬲 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 丕夭 禺賵賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘亘乇賴.
禺亘貙 賮讴乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁� 鬲賵賳爻鬲賴 亘丕卮賲 鬲賮丕賵鬲 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 賮蹖賱賲 賵 讴鬲丕亘 丿丕乇賳丿 乇賵 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲禺鬲氐乇蹖 亘丿賲. 丕夭 卮禺氐蹖鬲 倬乇丿丕夭蹖 賴丕蹖 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵卮賲 丕賵賲丿 賵 賵丕賯毓丕 賲蹖诏賲 丕诏乇 賮蹖賱賲 乇賵 賴賲 賳丿蹖丿賴 亘丕卮蹖丿 丕蹖賳賯丿乇 丕蹖賳 丌賯丕蹖 讴丕乇诏乇丿丕賳 亘丕 讴鬲丕亘蹖 讴賴 賳賵卮鬲賴貙 賮賵賯 丕賱毓丕丿賴 賯卮賳诏 噩賲賱賴 亘賳丿蹖 讴乇丿賴 賵 鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 鬲賵賳爻鬲賴 卮禺氐蹖鬲鈥屬囏� 乇賵 讴丕賲賱丕賸 賵丕囟丨 亘賴 賲禺丕胤亘卮 賳卮賵賳 丿丕丿賴 讴賴 亘賴 丕賳丿丕夭賴 讴丕賮蹖 丕夭 丿丕爻鬲丕賳卮 賱匕鬲 賲蹖亘乇蹖丿.
丕賱亘鬲賴 丕蹖賳 賳讴鬲賴 乇賵 賴賲 丕囟丕賮賴 讴賳賲 讴賴 賲賳 賵賯鬲蹖 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 禺賵賳丿賲 亘乇丕蹖 亘丕乇 丿賵賲 亘毓丿 丕夭 賲丿鬲賴丕 乇賮鬲賲 賵 賮蹖賱賲 乇賵 丿賵亘丕乇賴 丿蹖丿賲. 賮蹖賱賲 乇賵 賴賲 禺蹖賱蹖 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕卮鬲賲 丕賲丕 丨賯蹖賯鬲丕 讴鬲丕亘 噩匕丕亘 鬲乇賴... 卮禺氐蹖鬲 "讴賱蹖賮" 禺蹖賱蹖 禺蹖賱蹖 禺賵亘賴!!! 讴丕乇丕讴鬲乇 賲賵乇丿 毓賱丕賯賴鈥屫з� 鬲賵 賮蹖賱賲 賵 讴鬲丕亘 亘賵丿. (亘丕夭蹖诏乇卮 賴賲 噩賳丕亘 亘乇丿 倬蹖鬲 亘夭乇诏 賴爻鬲賳丿)
丕诏乇 亘禺賵丕賲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 跇丕賳乇 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕賴丕鬲賵賳 氐丨亘鬲 讴賳賲 賲蹖卮賴 诏賮鬲 蹖讴鈥屫堌必й屰� "讴賱丕爻蹖讴賽 賲丿乇賳" 賲丨爻賵亘 賲蹖卮賴 賵 賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 乇賵丕賳卮賳丕爻蹖鈥屫й� 讴賴 丿丕乇賴 胤賳夭 禺蹖賱蹖 賯卮賳诏蹖 賴賲 鬲賵卮 诏賳噩賵賳丿賴 卮丿賴 讴賴 禺蹖賱蹖 噩丕賴丕 亘丕毓孬 禺賳丿賴鈥屫堎� 賲蹖卮賴.
丿乇 讴賱 讴賴 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵亘蹖 亘賵丿貙 丕夭 禺賵賳丿賳卮 賱匕鬲 亘乇丿賲 賵 倬蹖卮賳賴丕丿 賲蹖讴賳賲 丕诏乇 賮蹖賱賲卮 乇賵 丿蹖丿蹖丿 賵 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕卮鬲蹖丿 丨鬲賲丕賸 讴鬲丕亘卮 乇賵 賴賲 亘禺賵賳蹖丿 趩賵賳 噩夭卅蹖丕鬲 禺蹖賱蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇賴. 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 賴賲 賮蹖賱賲 乇賵 丿賵爻鬲 賳丿丕卮鬲蹖丿 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 賲蹖鬲賵賳蹖丿 蹖讴 賮乇氐鬲 丿蹖诏賴 亘賴卮 亘丿蹖丿 賵 亘丕 禺賵賳丿賳 讴鬲丕亘卮 賯賵賱鈥� 賲蹖丿賲 鬲丕 丨丿 禺蹖賱蹖 夭蹖丕丿蹖 丕賵賳 丨爻蹖 讴賴 亘丕毓孬 卮丿 丕夭 賮蹖賱賲 賱匕鬲 賳亘乇蹖丿貙 噩亘乇丕賳 亘卮賴!
丿乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲乇噩賲賴 賴賲 賲蹖诏賲 讴賴 賵丕賯毓丕賸 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屰� 禺賵亘蹖 亘賵丿 賵 亘爻蹖丕乇 乇賵賵賳 賳賵卮鬲賴 卮丿賴. 賲鬲乇噩賲 丕賵賳 丨爻 賵 丨丕賱 胤賳夭蹖 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 亘賴 讴丕乇 亘乇丿賴 乇賵 亘賴 禺賵亘蹖 亘賴 賲丕 賲賳鬲賯賱 賲蹖讴賳賴. 賴賲蹖賳 丿蹖诏賴! 丕诏乇 賯氐丿 丿丕乇蹖丿 亘禺賵賳蹖丿貙 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 讴賴 丕夭卮 賱匕鬲 亘亘乇蹖丿.
October 30, 2022
3,5 stelute :)
Cartea urmareste linia filmului, insa avem ocazia sa cunoastem mult mai bine personajele principale - mi-a placut destul de mult :).
"[...]Pana atunci nu realizase ca unii regizori fac filme cu aceeasi forta ca marii scriitori. Nu toti regizorii. Nu majoritatea. Nici unul dintre regizorii cu care lucrase ea, in afara de sotul ei. Dar erau cativa."
"[...]Deci Roman manipulase sase sute de oameni, care in curand aveau sa devina milioane de oameni din toata lumea, ca sa faca ceva ce n-ar fi facut niciodata daca s-ar fi gandit. Dar nu se gandeau. Roman gandea in locul lor."
Cartea urmareste linia filmului, insa avem ocazia sa cunoastem mult mai bine personajele principale - mi-a placut destul de mult :).
"[...]Pana atunci nu realizase ca unii regizori fac filme cu aceeasi forta ca marii scriitori. Nu toti regizorii. Nu majoritatea. Nici unul dintre regizorii cu care lucrase ea, in afara de sotul ei. Dar erau cativa."
"[...]Deci Roman manipulase sase sute de oameni, care in curand aveau sa devina milioane de oameni din toata lumea, ca sa faca ceva ce n-ar fi facut niciodata daca s-ar fi gandit. Dar nu se gandeau. Roman gandea in locul lor."
January 16, 2023
I delayed watching the movie version of this for over a year I think, because I just couldn't bring myself to sit through Tarantino's creatively violent take on what happened to the people he is using as characters here. In particular, I did not want to watch Sharon Tate slaughtered in a cinematic way. I wasn't morally appalled by the film, I just didn't want to see it that much. If I had read articles about it at the time though, I would have found it was not historically accurate- and it is one of the few films that didn't irritate me when it veered so wildly from what actually happened. I don't know if this sounds cruel or not, but it was oddly cathartic to watch the Manson followers be obliterated in such over the top ways.
The novel deals with the climax of the film rather early on, in a sentence or two. Initially this surprised me, but I appreciated it. The novel is a different experience, even a different story in a way, with a different ending that I loved, possibly more than the films one. It felt much more worthwhile than I had expected, so much more than a rehash of the movie.
It's a funny novel (humour funny, not odd funny), with a lot of opinions about films and actors - I ended up making a list of some of Cliff's recommendations.
The only small downside - I found Margaret Qualley's character even more annoying in the book than I did in the film, an impressive feat! At least it did clarify that it was the character I dislike, not the actress.
[image error]
Overall though, a good read, especially if you enjoyed the film. 馃幀
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 8, 2022
笑械 卸 袣胁械薪褌褨薪, 斜谢褟褏邪, 孝邪褉邪薪褌褨薪芯. 携泻邪 褖械 芯褑褨薪泻邪 褌褍褌 屑芯谐谢邪 斜褍褌懈?馃
July 14, 2021
I am genuinely mystified at the amount of praise this book is getting. I found the novel practically unreadable. For starters I am totally allergic to fiction written in the present tense but even apart from that it comes across as total fan wankery. Then again no wonder given it was written by Tarantino's biggest fan. Hell, he even featured references to himself as a young boy in it!
Don't even know where to start so just a few small pointers why I reacted so strongly about this one. I certainly wasn't "nodding in the affirmative" (one of Tarantino's many awkward expressions in the book) when I was reading this
The book forsakes plot nearly entirely and just feels like listening in to some geeky bores ramble on and on and on and on about their favourite movies. It's bad enough when this is about real movies but gets worse when we read (but obviously can't see) references to fictitious films. And worst of all, Tarantino, self nominated movie geek Numero Uno, often gets his facts wrong about the real stuff: The "info" about the German Karl May movies e.g. has glaring errors starting from apparently having been filmed in the 1950s when they didn't get made until a decade later.
Every character regardless defines themselves by their love of movies and apparently Cliff even goes as far as having a Top 5 list of favourite Kurosawa films. Defining characters by their interests is always a very lazy way of characterisation but en masse such as here it is total ineptitude. (If he ever gets around to writing a Western novel as threatened I have no doubt it will mainly be an endless list of favourite Lily Langtry songs.)
So he drops the film's raison d'锚tre and (in)famous climax by making this just a tiny reference point very early on in the novel. This of course means that all the scenes with the Manson Family lose any of their meaning but hey, I am willing to forgive that if he had replaced the ending with something new and worthwhile. Instead the final pages are - no spoiler warning as there is nothing of interest to spoil - an endless reading of lines between Rick and the Girl???? Seriously??!!!??? That's it?????
Events in the future (1970s) are told in the conditional or past tense; events in the present (1969) in present tense; events in the past in past tense so with both past and future in the past tense, it's a stylistic nightmare together with the awkward present tense narration.
"If New York is the city that never sleeps, Los Angeles in the middle of the night and early wee hours of the morning turns back into the desert it was before it got paved over with concrete." Sorry, but this kind of stuff hurts both my eyes and ears when I read it aloud and every page if not every paragraph is choke full of dreadful narration.
I could go on endlessly (as Tarantino does) but I've had it with this book. Given that Tarantino is known for films with snappy and succinct dialogue, I am utterly stunned how clumsy this is written in every aspect.
Don't even know where to start so just a few small pointers why I reacted so strongly about this one. I certainly wasn't "nodding in the affirmative" (one of Tarantino's many awkward expressions in the book) when I was reading this
The book forsakes plot nearly entirely and just feels like listening in to some geeky bores ramble on and on and on and on about their favourite movies. It's bad enough when this is about real movies but gets worse when we read (but obviously can't see) references to fictitious films. And worst of all, Tarantino, self nominated movie geek Numero Uno, often gets his facts wrong about the real stuff: The "info" about the German Karl May movies e.g. has glaring errors starting from apparently having been filmed in the 1950s when they didn't get made until a decade later.
Every character regardless defines themselves by their love of movies and apparently Cliff even goes as far as having a Top 5 list of favourite Kurosawa films. Defining characters by their interests is always a very lazy way of characterisation but en masse such as here it is total ineptitude. (If he ever gets around to writing a Western novel as threatened I have no doubt it will mainly be an endless list of favourite Lily Langtry songs.)
So he drops the film's raison d'锚tre and (in)famous climax by making this just a tiny reference point very early on in the novel. This of course means that all the scenes with the Manson Family lose any of their meaning but hey, I am willing to forgive that if he had replaced the ending with something new and worthwhile. Instead the final pages are - no spoiler warning as there is nothing of interest to spoil - an endless reading of lines between Rick and the Girl???? Seriously??!!!??? That's it?????
Events in the future (1970s) are told in the conditional or past tense; events in the present (1969) in present tense; events in the past in past tense so with both past and future in the past tense, it's a stylistic nightmare together with the awkward present tense narration.
"If New York is the city that never sleeps, Los Angeles in the middle of the night and early wee hours of the morning turns back into the desert it was before it got paved over with concrete." Sorry, but this kind of stuff hurts both my eyes and ears when I read it aloud and every page if not every paragraph is choke full of dreadful narration.
I could go on endlessly (as Tarantino does) but I've had it with this book. Given that Tarantino is known for films with snappy and succinct dialogue, I am utterly stunned how clumsy this is written in every aspect.
November 21, 2021
螔伪胃渭慰位慰纬委伪: 9/10
螣 螝慰蠀苇谓蟿喂谓 韦伪蟻伪谓蟿委谓慰 蔚委谓伪喂 伪谓 蠈蠂喂 慰 伪纬伪蟺畏渭苇谓慰蟼 渭慰蠀 蟽魏畏谓慰胃苇蟿畏蟼, 蟿蠈蟿蔚 蟽委纬慰蠀蟻伪 苇谓伪蟼 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰蠀蟼 蟺苇谓蟿蔚 蟺喂慰 伪纬伪蟺畏渭苇谓慰蠀蟼. 螆蠂蠅 未蔚喂 蠈位蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀 蟿喂蟼 蟿伪喂谓委蔚蟼, 蟺慰位位苇蟼 伪蟺蠈 伪蠀蟿苇蟼 蟿蟻蔚喂蟼 魏伪喂 蟿苇蟽蟽蔚蟻喂蟼 蠁慰蟻苇蟼, 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 委未喂伪 伪蟺蠈位伪蠀蟽畏. 螁位位蔚蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 蠁慰尾蔚蟻苇蟼, 维位位蔚蟼 位喂纬蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 蠁慰尾蔚蟻苇蟼, 蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺喂魏维 蠈渭蠅蟼 蟿喂蟼 纬慰蠀蟽蟿维蟻蠅 蠈位蔚蟼, 纬喂伪 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏慰蠉蟼 位蠈纬慰蠀蟼 蟿畏谓 魏伪胃蔚渭委伪. 韦蠋蟻伪, 蟿畏谓 蟿蔚位蔚蠀蟿伪委伪 蟿慰蠀 蟿伪喂谓委伪 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 蟿委蟿位慰 "螝维蟺慰蟿蔚 蟽蟿慰 围蠈位喂纬慰蠀谓蟿" 蟿畏谓 蔚委未伪 蟽蟿慰谓 魏喂谓畏渭伪蟿慰纬蟻维蠁慰 渭蔚 蟿慰 蟺慰蠀 尾纬萎魏蔚 蟽蟿畏谓 螘位位维未伪 蟿慰谓 螒蠉纬慰蠀蟽蟿慰 蟿慰蠀 2019 魏伪喂 维位位畏 渭喂伪 蟺苇蟻蠀蟽喂, 蔚谓蠋 委蟽蠅蟼 蟿畏谓 尉伪谓伪未蠋 蟿慰蠀 蠂蟻蠈谓慰蠀. 螘委谓伪喂 伪蟺蠈 蟿喂蟼 伪纬伪蟺畏渭苇谓蔚蟼 渭慰蠀, 纬喂伪蟿委 苇蠂蔚喂 蠈位伪 伪蠀蟿维 蟿伪 魏伪位慰蠉未喂伪 蟺慰蠀 胃苇位蠅 伪蟺蠈 渭喂伪 蟿伪喂谓委伪, 蔚谓蠋 蠁蠀蟽喂魏维 魏伪喂 渭蠈谓慰 蠈蟿喂 苇蠂蔚喂 谓伪 魏维谓蔚喂 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 魏蠈蟽渭慰 蟿慰蠀 围蠈位喂纬慰蠀谓蟿 蟿畏蟼 未蔚魏伪蔚蟿委伪蟼 蟿慰蠀 '60 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪 蟽蠀谓 伪蟺蠈 渭苇谓伪.
韦慰 蟺蟻蠋蟿慰 伪蠀蟿蠈 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏渭伪 蟿慰蠀 韦伪蟻伪谓蟿委谓慰 (蔚位蟺委味蠅 谓伪 蠀蟺维蟻尉慰蠀谓 蟺慰位位维 维位位伪!), 位蔚喂蟿慰蠀蟻纬蔚委 蟽伪谓 蟽蠀渭蟺位萎蟻蠅渭伪 蟿畏蟼 蟿伪喂谓委伪蟼, 魏伪喂 蔚委谓伪喂 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏维 纬伪渭维蟿慰! 螒魏慰位慰蠀胃蔚委 蟿畏 纬蔚谓喂魏萎 蟺位慰魏萎 蟿畏蟼 蟿伪喂谓委伪蟼, 伪位位维 魏维蟺慰喂蔚蟼 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿畏蟻喂蟽蟿喂魏苇蟼 蟽魏畏谓苇蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 伪位位伪纬渭苇谓蔚蟼 蟽蔚 渭蔚纬维位慰 尾伪胃渭蠈, 蔚谓蠋 魏伪喂 蟿慰 伪蟺委蟽蟿蔚蠀蟿慰 蟿苇位慰蟼 蟿畏蟼 蟿伪喂谓委伪蟼 蔚未蠋 伪蟺位蠋蟼 伪谓伪蠁苇蟻蔚蟿伪喂 蔚蟺喂纬蟻伪渭渭伪蟿喂魏维 魏维蟺慰蠀 蟽蟿喂蟼 伪蟻蠂苇蟼 蟿畏蟼 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪蟼! 螣 韦伪蟻伪谓蟿委谓慰 蔚委蠂蔚 蟽魏慰蟺蠈 谓伪 渭伪蟼 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽喂维蟽蔚喂 渭蔚 位委纬慰 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 尾维胃慰蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼 尾伪蟽喂魏慰蠉蟼 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 (蟺.蠂. 渭伪胃伪委谓慰蠀渭蔚 魏维蟺慰喂伪 蟺伪蟻伪蟺维谓蠅 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿维魏喂伪 纬喂伪 蟿慰谓 伪蟺委胃伪谓慰 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻伪 蟿慰蠀 螝位喂蠁 螠蟺慰蠀胃), 伪位位维 魏伪喂 谓伪 尾纬维位蔚喂 伪蟺蠈 渭苇蟽伪 蟿慰蠀 蠈位伪 伪蠀蟿维 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰谓 蔚尉喂蟿维蟻慰蠀谓 蟽蔚 蟽蠂苇蟽畏 渭蔚 蟿慰 围蠈位喂纬慰蠀谓蟿, 蟿喂蟼 蟿伪喂谓委蔚蟼 魏伪喂 蟿喂蟼 蟽蔚喂蟻苇蟼, 伪位位维 魏伪喂 蟿畏 渭慰蠀蟽喂魏萎 蟿畏蟼 未蔚魏伪蔚蟿委伪蟼 蟿慰蠀 '60 (维谓蟿蔚, 魏伪喂 位委纬慰 伪蟺蠈 未蔚魏伪蔚蟿委伪 蟿慰蠀 '50).
螘委谓伪喂 蔚渭蠁伪谓苇蟼 蠈蟿喂 慰喂 纬谓蠋蟽蔚喂蟼 蟿慰蠀 韦伪蟻伪谓蟿委谓慰 纬喂伪 蟿伪喂谓委蔚蟼, 蟿畏位蔚慰蟺蟿喂魏苇蟼 蟽蔚喂蟻苇蟼, 畏胃慰蟺慰喂慰蠉蟼, 未喂维蠁慰蟻蔚蟼 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委蔚蟼 魏伪喂 伪谓苇魏未慰蟿伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰谓 渭伪纬蔚蠀蟿喂魏蠈 伪位位维 蟽蠀谓维渭伪 蟽魏位畏蟻蠈 魏蠈蟽渭慰 蟿慰蠀 蟺伪位喂慰蠉 围蠈位喂纬慰蠀谓蟿, 蔚委谓伪喂 伪蟺蔚蟻喂蠈蟻喂蟽蟿蔚蟼, 魏伪喂 蔚未蠋 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽喂维味蔚喂 渭蔚蟻喂魏苇蟼 伪蟺蠈 伪蠀蟿苇蟼. 螖蔚谓 尉苇蟻蠅 魏伪蟿维 蟺蠈蟽慰 蟿慰 渭蟺位伪 渭蟺位伪 蟺慰蠀 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 蔚未蠋 魏喂 蔚魏蔚委 蟽蟿喂蟼 蟺慰蟺 伪谓伪蠁慰蟻苇蟼 魏伪喂 蟿慰蠀蟼 未喂伪位蠈纬慰蠀蟼 胃伪 喂魏伪谓慰蟺慰喂萎蟽蔚喂 萎 胃伪 喂谓蟿蟻喂纬魏维蟻蔚喂 蠈位慰蠀蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿蔚蟼, 蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺喂魏维 蠈渭蠅蟼 渭蔚 尉蔚蟿蟻苇位伪谓蔚, 纬喂伪蟿委 蔚魏蟿蠈蟼 蟿蠅谓 维位位蠅谓 慰 渭蟺伪纬维蟽伪蟼 渭蔚 苇尾伪位蔚 蟽蟿慰 蟿蟻蠀蟺维魏喂 谓伪 蠄维蠂谓蠅 纬喂伪 畏胃慰蟺慰喂慰蠉蟼, 蟿伪喂谓委蔚蟼, 蟽蔚喂蟻苇蟼, 伪位位维 魏伪喂 蟿蟻伪纬慰蠉未喂伪. 螝伪喂 蠁蠀蟽喂魏维 渭蔚 蟿喂蟼 蟺蔚蟻喂纬蟻伪蠁苇蟼, 蟿慰蠀蟼 未喂伪位蠈纬慰蠀蟼 魏伪喂 蟿喂蟼 蟺慰蟺 伪谓伪蠁慰蟻苇蟼 魏伪蟿维蠁蔚蟻蔚 谓伪 渭蔚 蟿伪尉喂未苇蠄蔚喂 蟺委蟽蠅 蟽蟿慰谓 蠂蟻蠈谓慰, 蟽蔚 渭喂伪 蔚蟺慰蠂萎 蟺慰蠀 委蟽蠅蟼 胃伪 萎胃蔚位伪 谓伪 蔚委蠂伪 味萎蟽蔚喂 蟿伪 谓喂维蟿伪 渭慰蠀 (魏伪喂 蔚喂未喂魏维 蟽蟿喂蟼 螚谓蠅渭苇谓蔚蟼 螤慰位喂蟿蔚委蔚蟼), 魏伪喂 谓伪 渭蔚 魏维谓蔚喂 谓伪 谓慰蟽蟿伪位纬萎蟽蠅 纬喂伪 渭苇蟻畏 魏伪喂 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 尾苇尾伪喂伪 未蔚谓 苇味畏蟽伪.
螤蟻慰蟿蔚委谓蠅 谓伪 未蔚委蟿蔚 蟿畏谓 蟿伪喂谓委伪 蟺蟻蠋蟿伪, 魏伪喂 伪谓 蟽伪蟼 伪蟻苇蟽蔚喂, 蟿蠈蟿蔚 蟺蟻慰蠂蠅蟻萎蟽蟿蔚 魏伪喂 蟽蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰, 伪位位维 伪蠁萎蟽蟿蔚 谓伪 蟺蔚蟻维蟽蔚喂 位委纬慰蟼 魏伪喂蟻蠈蟼 蟽蟿慰 渭蔚蟿伪尉蠉. 螌蟽慰谓 伪蠁慰蟻维 蟿畏谓 蔚位位畏谓喂魏萎 苇魏未慰蟽畏, 蔚委谓伪喂 蟺维蟻伪 蟺慰位蠉 蠅蟻伪委伪 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰蟽蔚纬渭苇谓畏, 渭蔚 纬位伪蠁蠀蟻萎 渭蔚蟿维蠁蟻伪蟽畏.
螣 螝慰蠀苇谓蟿喂谓 韦伪蟻伪谓蟿委谓慰 蔚委谓伪喂 伪谓 蠈蠂喂 慰 伪纬伪蟺畏渭苇谓慰蟼 渭慰蠀 蟽魏畏谓慰胃苇蟿畏蟼, 蟿蠈蟿蔚 蟽委纬慰蠀蟻伪 苇谓伪蟼 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰蠀蟼 蟺苇谓蟿蔚 蟺喂慰 伪纬伪蟺畏渭苇谓慰蠀蟼. 螆蠂蠅 未蔚喂 蠈位蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀 蟿喂蟼 蟿伪喂谓委蔚蟼, 蟺慰位位苇蟼 伪蟺蠈 伪蠀蟿苇蟼 蟿蟻蔚喂蟼 魏伪喂 蟿苇蟽蟽蔚蟻喂蟼 蠁慰蟻苇蟼, 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 委未喂伪 伪蟺蠈位伪蠀蟽畏. 螁位位蔚蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 蠁慰尾蔚蟻苇蟼, 维位位蔚蟼 位喂纬蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 蠁慰尾蔚蟻苇蟼, 蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺喂魏维 蠈渭蠅蟼 蟿喂蟼 纬慰蠀蟽蟿维蟻蠅 蠈位蔚蟼, 纬喂伪 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏慰蠉蟼 位蠈纬慰蠀蟼 蟿畏谓 魏伪胃蔚渭委伪. 韦蠋蟻伪, 蟿畏谓 蟿蔚位蔚蠀蟿伪委伪 蟿慰蠀 蟿伪喂谓委伪 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 蟿委蟿位慰 "螝维蟺慰蟿蔚 蟽蟿慰 围蠈位喂纬慰蠀谓蟿" 蟿畏谓 蔚委未伪 蟽蟿慰谓 魏喂谓畏渭伪蟿慰纬蟻维蠁慰 渭蔚 蟿慰 蟺慰蠀 尾纬萎魏蔚 蟽蟿畏谓 螘位位维未伪 蟿慰谓 螒蠉纬慰蠀蟽蟿慰 蟿慰蠀 2019 魏伪喂 维位位畏 渭喂伪 蟺苇蟻蠀蟽喂, 蔚谓蠋 委蟽蠅蟼 蟿畏谓 尉伪谓伪未蠋 蟿慰蠀 蠂蟻蠈谓慰蠀. 螘委谓伪喂 伪蟺蠈 蟿喂蟼 伪纬伪蟺畏渭苇谓蔚蟼 渭慰蠀, 纬喂伪蟿委 苇蠂蔚喂 蠈位伪 伪蠀蟿维 蟿伪 魏伪位慰蠉未喂伪 蟺慰蠀 胃苇位蠅 伪蟺蠈 渭喂伪 蟿伪喂谓委伪, 蔚谓蠋 蠁蠀蟽喂魏维 魏伪喂 渭蠈谓慰 蠈蟿喂 苇蠂蔚喂 谓伪 魏维谓蔚喂 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 魏蠈蟽渭慰 蟿慰蠀 围蠈位喂纬慰蠀谓蟿 蟿畏蟼 未蔚魏伪蔚蟿委伪蟼 蟿慰蠀 '60 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪 蟽蠀谓 伪蟺蠈 渭苇谓伪.
韦慰 蟺蟻蠋蟿慰 伪蠀蟿蠈 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏渭伪 蟿慰蠀 韦伪蟻伪谓蟿委谓慰 (蔚位蟺委味蠅 谓伪 蠀蟺维蟻尉慰蠀谓 蟺慰位位维 维位位伪!), 位蔚喂蟿慰蠀蟻纬蔚委 蟽伪谓 蟽蠀渭蟺位萎蟻蠅渭伪 蟿畏蟼 蟿伪喂谓委伪蟼, 魏伪喂 蔚委谓伪喂 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏维 纬伪渭维蟿慰! 螒魏慰位慰蠀胃蔚委 蟿畏 纬蔚谓喂魏萎 蟺位慰魏萎 蟿畏蟼 蟿伪喂谓委伪蟼, 伪位位维 魏维蟺慰喂蔚蟼 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿畏蟻喂蟽蟿喂魏苇蟼 蟽魏畏谓苇蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 伪位位伪纬渭苇谓蔚蟼 蟽蔚 渭蔚纬维位慰 尾伪胃渭蠈, 蔚谓蠋 魏伪喂 蟿慰 伪蟺委蟽蟿蔚蠀蟿慰 蟿苇位慰蟼 蟿畏蟼 蟿伪喂谓委伪蟼 蔚未蠋 伪蟺位蠋蟼 伪谓伪蠁苇蟻蔚蟿伪喂 蔚蟺喂纬蟻伪渭渭伪蟿喂魏维 魏维蟺慰蠀 蟽蟿喂蟼 伪蟻蠂苇蟼 蟿畏蟼 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪蟼! 螣 韦伪蟻伪谓蟿委谓慰 蔚委蠂蔚 蟽魏慰蟺蠈 谓伪 渭伪蟼 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽喂维蟽蔚喂 渭蔚 位委纬慰 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 尾维胃慰蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼 尾伪蟽喂魏慰蠉蟼 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 (蟺.蠂. 渭伪胃伪委谓慰蠀渭蔚 魏维蟺慰喂伪 蟺伪蟻伪蟺维谓蠅 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿维魏喂伪 纬喂伪 蟿慰谓 伪蟺委胃伪谓慰 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻伪 蟿慰蠀 螝位喂蠁 螠蟺慰蠀胃), 伪位位维 魏伪喂 谓伪 尾纬维位蔚喂 伪蟺蠈 渭苇蟽伪 蟿慰蠀 蠈位伪 伪蠀蟿维 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰谓 蔚尉喂蟿维蟻慰蠀谓 蟽蔚 蟽蠂苇蟽畏 渭蔚 蟿慰 围蠈位喂纬慰蠀谓蟿, 蟿喂蟼 蟿伪喂谓委蔚蟼 魏伪喂 蟿喂蟼 蟽蔚喂蟻苇蟼, 伪位位维 魏伪喂 蟿畏 渭慰蠀蟽喂魏萎 蟿畏蟼 未蔚魏伪蔚蟿委伪蟼 蟿慰蠀 '60 (维谓蟿蔚, 魏伪喂 位委纬慰 伪蟺蠈 未蔚魏伪蔚蟿委伪 蟿慰蠀 '50).
螘委谓伪喂 蔚渭蠁伪谓苇蟼 蠈蟿喂 慰喂 纬谓蠋蟽蔚喂蟼 蟿慰蠀 韦伪蟻伪谓蟿委谓慰 纬喂伪 蟿伪喂谓委蔚蟼, 蟿畏位蔚慰蟺蟿喂魏苇蟼 蟽蔚喂蟻苇蟼, 畏胃慰蟺慰喂慰蠉蟼, 未喂维蠁慰蟻蔚蟼 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委蔚蟼 魏伪喂 伪谓苇魏未慰蟿伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰谓 渭伪纬蔚蠀蟿喂魏蠈 伪位位维 蟽蠀谓维渭伪 蟽魏位畏蟻蠈 魏蠈蟽渭慰 蟿慰蠀 蟺伪位喂慰蠉 围蠈位喂纬慰蠀谓蟿, 蔚委谓伪喂 伪蟺蔚蟻喂蠈蟻喂蟽蟿蔚蟼, 魏伪喂 蔚未蠋 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽喂维味蔚喂 渭蔚蟻喂魏苇蟼 伪蟺蠈 伪蠀蟿苇蟼. 螖蔚谓 尉苇蟻蠅 魏伪蟿维 蟺蠈蟽慰 蟿慰 渭蟺位伪 渭蟺位伪 蟺慰蠀 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 蔚未蠋 魏喂 蔚魏蔚委 蟽蟿喂蟼 蟺慰蟺 伪谓伪蠁慰蟻苇蟼 魏伪喂 蟿慰蠀蟼 未喂伪位蠈纬慰蠀蟼 胃伪 喂魏伪谓慰蟺慰喂萎蟽蔚喂 萎 胃伪 喂谓蟿蟻喂纬魏维蟻蔚喂 蠈位慰蠀蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿蔚蟼, 蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺喂魏维 蠈渭蠅蟼 渭蔚 尉蔚蟿蟻苇位伪谓蔚, 纬喂伪蟿委 蔚魏蟿蠈蟼 蟿蠅谓 维位位蠅谓 慰 渭蟺伪纬维蟽伪蟼 渭蔚 苇尾伪位蔚 蟽蟿慰 蟿蟻蠀蟺维魏喂 谓伪 蠄维蠂谓蠅 纬喂伪 畏胃慰蟺慰喂慰蠉蟼, 蟿伪喂谓委蔚蟼, 蟽蔚喂蟻苇蟼, 伪位位维 魏伪喂 蟿蟻伪纬慰蠉未喂伪. 螝伪喂 蠁蠀蟽喂魏维 渭蔚 蟿喂蟼 蟺蔚蟻喂纬蟻伪蠁苇蟼, 蟿慰蠀蟼 未喂伪位蠈纬慰蠀蟼 魏伪喂 蟿喂蟼 蟺慰蟺 伪谓伪蠁慰蟻苇蟼 魏伪蟿维蠁蔚蟻蔚 谓伪 渭蔚 蟿伪尉喂未苇蠄蔚喂 蟺委蟽蠅 蟽蟿慰谓 蠂蟻蠈谓慰, 蟽蔚 渭喂伪 蔚蟺慰蠂萎 蟺慰蠀 委蟽蠅蟼 胃伪 萎胃蔚位伪 谓伪 蔚委蠂伪 味萎蟽蔚喂 蟿伪 谓喂维蟿伪 渭慰蠀 (魏伪喂 蔚喂未喂魏维 蟽蟿喂蟼 螚谓蠅渭苇谓蔚蟼 螤慰位喂蟿蔚委蔚蟼), 魏伪喂 谓伪 渭蔚 魏维谓蔚喂 谓伪 谓慰蟽蟿伪位纬萎蟽蠅 纬喂伪 渭苇蟻畏 魏伪喂 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 尾苇尾伪喂伪 未蔚谓 苇味畏蟽伪.
螤蟻慰蟿蔚委谓蠅 谓伪 未蔚委蟿蔚 蟿畏谓 蟿伪喂谓委伪 蟺蟻蠋蟿伪, 魏伪喂 伪谓 蟽伪蟼 伪蟻苇蟽蔚喂, 蟿蠈蟿蔚 蟺蟻慰蠂蠅蟻萎蟽蟿蔚 魏伪喂 蟽蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰, 伪位位维 伪蠁萎蟽蟿蔚 谓伪 蟺蔚蟻维蟽蔚喂 位委纬慰蟼 魏伪喂蟻蠈蟼 蟽蟿慰 渭蔚蟿伪尉蠉. 螌蟽慰谓 伪蠁慰蟻维 蟿畏谓 蔚位位畏谓喂魏萎 苇魏未慰蟽畏, 蔚委谓伪喂 蟺维蟻伪 蟺慰位蠉 蠅蟻伪委伪 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰蟽蔚纬渭苇谓畏, 渭蔚 纬位伪蠁蠀蟻萎 渭蔚蟿维蠁蟻伪蟽畏.
May 23, 2022
I love QT, and OUATI HOLLYWOOD was my favorite film of 2019, but this is not a novel, or even a novelization, it's an assemblage of supplemental written material undoubtedly developed over a period of some years before QT actually made the movie.
Some chapters read like early-draft screenwriting, some like prose backstory for the eventual cast, and some could be QT walking around spitballing ideas into a tape recorder. All of which are admirable techniques a master storyteller might use to develop an original work, but having your staff then cobble all these loose bits into a paperback and selling it as a "novel" is disingenuous.
Every scene or idea he eventually used in the movie is palpably, embarrassingly worse here. Nor will this book "enhance your experience of the movie," any more than six hours of re-cut Beatles footage enhanced LET IT BE, or that visit to the French rubber plantation enhanced APOCALYPSE NOW.
Some chapters read like early-draft screenwriting, some like prose backstory for the eventual cast, and some could be QT walking around spitballing ideas into a tape recorder. All of which are admirable techniques a master storyteller might use to develop an original work, but having your staff then cobble all these loose bits into a paperback and selling it as a "novel" is disingenuous.
Every scene or idea he eventually used in the movie is palpably, embarrassingly worse here. Nor will this book "enhance your experience of the movie," any more than six hours of re-cut Beatles footage enhanced LET IT BE, or that visit to the French rubber plantation enhanced APOCALYPSE NOW.
May 28, 2023
Quentin Tarantino wowed me with his book 鈥淐inema Speculation鈥�, a wonderful nonfiction book about the movies that made Tarantino the man and the director he is today. It was a gorgeous thought-provoking love-letter to cinema of a specific era, that era being the late-鈥�60s and early-鈥�70s.
I picked up his novelization of his film 鈥淥nce Upon a Time in Hollywood鈥�, but I honestly 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 think I was going to like it, for two main reasons: 1) I honestly believed that Tarantino鈥檚 brilliance in 鈥淐inema Speculation鈥� was a one-off, not necessarily because I 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 think he could pull off another excellent book or that he couldn鈥檛 possibly be as talented of a novel-writer as he was a screenwriter or director, but simply because I thought that 鈥淐inema Speculation鈥� was so good that it would be hard for him to replicate it. (Never mind, of course, that 鈥淥UATIH鈥� was published a year BEFORE 鈥淐inema Speculation鈥�, but whatever鈥�) and 2) I had seen the movie 鈥淥nce Upon a Time in Hollywood鈥� and, while I enjoyed it (I鈥檒l be honest: there hasn鈥檛 been a Tarantino movie I 丑补惫别苍鈥檛 enjoyed), I felt that it was his most flawed film to date and I had problems with the ending, that being the 鈥渇airy tale鈥� alternate reality ending in which the lovely Sharon Tate et al. at 10050 Cielo Drive, Los Angeles, CA were not brutally murdered by four brainwashed hippies under the insane orders of Charles Manson. Honestly, I shed a few tears at the end, knowing that Tarantino鈥檚 ending was bullshit but also knowing that I wish it had happened the way Tarantino envisioned it, which, I know, was most likely his point.
So, I read the novelization.
I need to say it: it鈥檚 excellent. Fucking brilliant. And it鈥檚 also not a novelization. It鈥檚 a novel, and a damn good one. It also has very little resemblance to the film. A few scenes from the film made it into the book, but there were a lot of scenes I don鈥檛 remember seeing. (I have a feeling some of these scenes show up on the DVD bonus features or in a 鈥淒irector鈥檚 Cut鈥� version that I have not seen yet.)
The book is so different from the film that they are almost two separate entities with only the barest of similarities. This is, in my opinion, a positive.
Tarantino has written a novel that tells a beautiful story about the death of Old Hollywood, the big-studio machine that essentially controlled and helped create the City of Angels. He tells it in the story of has-been actor Rick Dalton (played by Leonardo DiCaprio in the film), stuck in the weird limbo period of the late-鈥�60s when big-studio Hollywood was transitioning to the New Wave of the 鈥�70s, in which a slew of independent and European filmmakers would reshape the market and the entire film industry in less than a decade.
There鈥檚 little to no room for old-school actors like Dalton, condemned to playing guest appearances as villains on TV westerns and cop shows. His alcoholism 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 help. Thankfully, he has Cliff Booth, his former stunt man/current driver/best friend (played by Brad Pitt in the film). Cliff is a good guy, if one can forgive his past transgressions, which include murdering several people including his wife and getting away with it.
Both men represent a dying breed, struggling to hold on to the only world they know and pushing back against all the crazy changes they see in the world around them, changes that they secretly know that they need to embrace in order to keep going in Tinsel Town.
I鈥檓 not sure why Tarantino chose to downplay the violence and the emphasis on the Manson Family in the novel, but it was, in the end, the right decision. This book is not about Charles Manson or the murder of Sharon Tate. It鈥檚 about Rick and Cliff.
I don鈥檛 care what the fuck Tarantino writes about in his next book, but I sure as fuck look forward to reading it.
I picked up his novelization of his film 鈥淥nce Upon a Time in Hollywood鈥�, but I honestly 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 think I was going to like it, for two main reasons: 1) I honestly believed that Tarantino鈥檚 brilliance in 鈥淐inema Speculation鈥� was a one-off, not necessarily because I 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 think he could pull off another excellent book or that he couldn鈥檛 possibly be as talented of a novel-writer as he was a screenwriter or director, but simply because I thought that 鈥淐inema Speculation鈥� was so good that it would be hard for him to replicate it. (Never mind, of course, that 鈥淥UATIH鈥� was published a year BEFORE 鈥淐inema Speculation鈥�, but whatever鈥�) and 2) I had seen the movie 鈥淥nce Upon a Time in Hollywood鈥� and, while I enjoyed it (I鈥檒l be honest: there hasn鈥檛 been a Tarantino movie I 丑补惫别苍鈥檛 enjoyed), I felt that it was his most flawed film to date and I had problems with the ending, that being the 鈥渇airy tale鈥� alternate reality ending in which the lovely Sharon Tate et al. at 10050 Cielo Drive, Los Angeles, CA were not brutally murdered by four brainwashed hippies under the insane orders of Charles Manson. Honestly, I shed a few tears at the end, knowing that Tarantino鈥檚 ending was bullshit but also knowing that I wish it had happened the way Tarantino envisioned it, which, I know, was most likely his point.
So, I read the novelization.
I need to say it: it鈥檚 excellent. Fucking brilliant. And it鈥檚 also not a novelization. It鈥檚 a novel, and a damn good one. It also has very little resemblance to the film. A few scenes from the film made it into the book, but there were a lot of scenes I don鈥檛 remember seeing. (I have a feeling some of these scenes show up on the DVD bonus features or in a 鈥淒irector鈥檚 Cut鈥� version that I have not seen yet.)
The book is so different from the film that they are almost two separate entities with only the barest of similarities. This is, in my opinion, a positive.
Tarantino has written a novel that tells a beautiful story about the death of Old Hollywood, the big-studio machine that essentially controlled and helped create the City of Angels. He tells it in the story of has-been actor Rick Dalton (played by Leonardo DiCaprio in the film), stuck in the weird limbo period of the late-鈥�60s when big-studio Hollywood was transitioning to the New Wave of the 鈥�70s, in which a slew of independent and European filmmakers would reshape the market and the entire film industry in less than a decade.
There鈥檚 little to no room for old-school actors like Dalton, condemned to playing guest appearances as villains on TV westerns and cop shows. His alcoholism 诲辞别蝉苍鈥檛 help. Thankfully, he has Cliff Booth, his former stunt man/current driver/best friend (played by Brad Pitt in the film). Cliff is a good guy, if one can forgive his past transgressions, which include murdering several people including his wife and getting away with it.
Both men represent a dying breed, struggling to hold on to the only world they know and pushing back against all the crazy changes they see in the world around them, changes that they secretly know that they need to embrace in order to keep going in Tinsel Town.
I鈥檓 not sure why Tarantino chose to downplay the violence and the emphasis on the Manson Family in the novel, but it was, in the end, the right decision. This book is not about Charles Manson or the murder of Sharon Tate. It鈥檚 about Rick and Cliff.
I don鈥檛 care what the fuck Tarantino writes about in his next book, but I sure as fuck look forward to reading it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,911 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.