Bruce Lee Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

[CTTT]

https://www.cbr.com/bruce-lee-daught...tino-comments/.

*sighs*. here we go again, Bruce Lee's daughter railing about the white man not understanding what it took for an Asian actor to succeed in Hollywood in the 60s and 70s. Y;know it's not even about the color of the skin but about when you were born as well. QT is a student and scholar of film. I'm sure he did his research into Bruce Lee. Not really sure why she should get her feathers ruffled and others as well. The movie is an alternate history of Hollywood at the tail end of the 60s. Plus it even changes the ending to the Sharon Tate story which I was surprised at and gives it a happier ending. As far as the Bruce Lee scene is concerned, Cliff Booth is one of the protagonists of the movie. So, the scene is an attempt to show that Cliff not only is an able stuntman but a capable fighter as well. I thought it was a cool scene. Plus it sets up the scene at the ranch with out he's able to handle himself and at the end when the attackers come to his home and while high still able to kick ass. Again, alternate history.

[Sacred Knight]

I don't know, for me its Tarantino's insistence that he knows best which is weird. While I'm sure he did his research, when pretty much everyone who knows him says the portrayal wasn't accurate, I tend to lean toward believing them. Its a work of fiction based around the idea of a different historical direction than reality. I think most get that. But at the same time I don't get his insistence that he knows more than his actual friends/family who actually knew him in life about the real man. Just say hey, it is indeed a work of fiction, not everything is nor is intended to be historically accurate in its entirety.

[godisawesome]

Yeah, I’m kind of on the Lees’ side here; QT dropped a caricature of a real human being in to use as a measuring stick for his OC deuteragonist, and intentionally played the caricature as more of a “heel.” Seeing as how most of the other caricatures fo real people were considered marginally accurate, or at least enough to avoid offense, it’s a lazy low blow to choose an American legend and one of Asian-America’s first real champions as a minor antagonist the film mocks a bit.

I’m already leery myself about alt-history stories, even when done by famous writers of that genre; the inherent risk of it is screwing up real people or events in a way that exposes the author’s prejudices or laziness. At least if you throw in more outright fantastical character or elements, you can hide your mistakes behind the fact that you’re already depending more on imagination than research.

[CTTT]

I don't know, for me its Tarantino's insistence that he knows best which is weird. While I'm sure he did his research, when pretty much everyone who knows him says the portrayal wasn't accurate, I tend to lean toward believing them. Its a work of fiction based around the idea of a different historical direction than reality. I think most get that. But at the same time I don't get his insistence that he knows more than his actual friends/family who actually knew him in life about the real man. Just say hey, it is indeed a work of fiction, not everything is nor is intended to be historically accurate in its entirety.

Yeah, I agree with that saying it's a work of fiction. I think QT's wording could have been better telling everyone other than BL's daughter to go suck a d*ck.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

QT is a student and scholar of film.

He's not. Tarantino never went to film school nor has he published actual scholarship on film-making and film production

Tarantino is a self-taught film geek which is to say he knows a great deal about the films he sees but is by and large an expert on his own impressions and interpretations of the film. Whereas a film scholar actually does independent research in the field, sifts through records, spends time in archives and is schooled in how to best approach and grade different sources and account for context.

Of course, even if Tarantino were an actual film scholar, that wouldn't mean he was incapable of being wrong, or above and beyond reproach and criticism.

I'm sure he did his research into Bruce Lee.

He didn't. He only read a couple of books and made errors in his reading which people have pointed out, and he misrepresents the authors of the books he has read.

Not really sure why she should get her feathers

Bruce Lee is her father.

The movie is an alternate history of Hollywood at the tail end of the 60s.

It presents a more positive picture of Roman Polanski than Bruce Lee, when alternate history would allow Tarantino to make Polanski a bad dude decades before the timeline matched. Every real life person or figure in the film is presented positively and respectfully except Bruce Lee.

Tarantino likes talking trash and taking potshots which he has done at different times in his career, but he's quite thin skinned when he's facing criticism.

[Jim Kelly]

I can only remember two brief scenes of the Bruce Lee character in the movie, maybe there were three. Both scenes I recall used movie shorthand to present the character. One scene shows that Bruce Lee trained Sharon Tate (which is all true--and the movie never gets into the crazy theory at the time that Bruce Lee did the murders, because that doesn't serve the plot). The other scene is where Lee underestimates Cliff and makes a mistake.

Tarantino is just referencing Bruce Lee, he's not using him as a major character. So it would be a waste of screen time to develop his story and explain him to the audience. The scene where Cliff gets the better of him is a visual demonstration of something that's talked about in the movie. They say that Rick Dalton is getting these guest roles where he's shown up by the lead actor on the series--because Rick brings with him a certain reputation as a T.V. tough guy--so having the lead defeat him proves that the lead's also a tough guy. Cliff getting the better of someone like Bruce Lee--who everyone knows was a great fighter--proves that he has the royal jelly. If we didn't think of Bruce Lee as an absolute powerhouse--the whole point of the scene wouldn't work.

Moreover, if Tarantino was too in awe of Bruce Lee and just made him out to be so perfect, that wouldn't really pay respect to Bruce Lee as a human being. Tarantino presents two scenes that balance out this background character. We see him on the one hand being a great teacher to Sharon Tate and on the other being overly smug about Cliff Booth's skills. For such a minor character, that's an even-handed portrait. And given Tarantino's own personality, it's not even a negative that Bruce Lee is arrogant in the movie. Tarantino is arrogant and his heroes are all arrogant. Lee's daughter would see the scene as putting her father in a bad light, but Tarantino would see the scene as putting Lee in the best light.

On top of that, it's fiction. And that's a point that's rammed home at the end of the movie. Compare the treatment of Bruce Lee in this movie with the numerous treatments of Marilyn Monroe in several different movies--she's exploited and fictionalized a lot more. But she never had a daughter who could complain about it.

[CTTT]

He's not. Tarantino never went to film school nor has he published actual scholarship on film-making and film production

Tarantino is a self-taught film geek which is to say he knows a great deal about the films he sees but is by and large an expert on his own impressions and interpretations of the film. Whereas a film scholar actually does independent research in the field, sifts through records, spends time in archives and is schooled in how to best approach and grade different sources and account for context.

Of course, even if Tarantino were an actual film scholar, that wouldn't mean he was incapable of being wrong, or above and beyond reproach and criticism.



He didn't. He only read a couple of books and made errors in his reading which people have pointed out, and he misrepresents the authors of the books he has read.



Bruce Lee is her father.



It presents a more positive picture of Roman Polanski than Bruce Lee, when alternate history would allow Tarantino to make Polanski a bad dude decades before the timeline matched. Every real life person or figure in the film is presented positively and respectfully except Bruce Lee.

Tarantino likes talking trash and taking potshots which he has done at different times in his career, but he's quite thin skinned when he's facing criticism.

I appreciate the explanation about the scholarship. So basically, Polanski in an alternate history should still be portrayed as a scumbug, but the timeline is different? Actually, being the events happened in 1969, having him portrayed more positively makes sense. He was married to Sharon at the time and the event which led to his fugitive expulsion happened in 1977. And yes, Shannon is his daughter, but she was only 4 when he died. So, she would know even less about her father's struggle than Tarantino.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Tarantino is just referencing Bruce Lee, he's not using him as a major character. So it would be a waste of screen time to develop his story and explain him to the audience.

That's not the problem. The problem is that Tarantino portrays several real-life celebrities in OUTIH -- Steve McQueen, Sharon Tate, Roman Polanski, Bruce Lee, Jay Sebring. Of the lot, only Bruce Lee, and Bruce Lee alone, is framed negatively. In an entire slew of white folks, Bruce Lee gets singled out and shown as a clown and loudmouth.

If the movie didn't feature Bruce Lee and simply used some fictional character to make the scene work the way it's written, or if it had Bruce Lee and showed him positively, nobody would object.

Moreover, if Tarantino was too in awe of Bruce Lee and just made him out to be so perfect, that wouldn't really pay respect to Bruce Lee as a human being.

Treating Bruce Lee significantly worse than Roman Polanski is a significant double standard.

Tarantino doesn't have excuses here...historical accuracy isn't going to bail him out (the finale takes that support away) nor is "it's fiction deal with it" going to change the fact that he singled out Bruce Lee alone among historical figures to misrepresent. If you can show Polanski accurate-to-the-period then why not extend the same courtesy to Lee?

That's a double standard that wouldn't be up for debate if this was any other film-maker than Quentin Tarantino. Because it's Tarantino who's supposed to be edgy and cool, and so on...but nobody is edgy and cool forever, and you can't pose as someone with a lot of high opinions opposed to the establishment and be thin-skinned when you get criticism thrown your way.

And given Tarantino's own personality, it's not even a negative that Bruce Lee is arrogant in the movie.

In the recent Joe Rogan interview, Tarantino proves otherwise, he wrote that scene as a form of vicarious revenge fantasy to take down Bruce Lee posthumously, even when as Shannon Lee pointed out, his movie Kill Bill borrowed tons of stuff from Lee's movies and iconography.

So basically, Polanski in an alternate history should still be portrayed as a scumbug,

Tarantino portrays Polanski fairly to the time period but doesn't portray Bruce Lee fairly. You can't use history to justify Polanski's fair portrayal and then use fiction to justify Lee's portrayal. That doesn't work.

And yes, Shannon is his daughter, but she was only 4 when he died. So, she would know even less about her father's struggle than Tarantino.

[CTTT]

As far as Lee's portrayal, one example I can give is Steve Mcqueen. Mcqueen was a student of Lee's Lee was very jealous and competitive of Mcqueen at the time, as Mcqueen was a huge star. So, in the movie, the idea of some random stuntman like Cliff trying to upstage him makes his reaction to Cliff credible. He wasn't exactly a handshake and hug kind of guy.

Mcqueen and Lee:

https://screenrant.com/bruce-lee-ste...lry-explained/

[Jim Kelly]

Well, I can only say what I thought when I saw the movie fresh. To me the Bruce Lee character was a positive character. And I watched the movie free of any reviews--it was only after I saw the movie that I read what others took from it, which wasn't what I got out of it. And you can't force me to think otherwise.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

And you can't force me to think otherwise.

Nobody is forcing you to think otherwise, just as you can't force anyone that your personal individual response alone can shut down debate and negate any counter-arguments, or stand in and represent the creator's perspective.

As far as Lee's portrayal, one example I can give is Steve Mcqueen. Mcqueen was a student of Lee's Lee was very jealous and competitive of Mcqueen at the time, as Mcqueen was a huge star. So, in the movie, the idea of some random stuntman like Cliff trying to upstage him makes his reaction to Cliff credible. He wasn't exactly a handshake and hug kind of guy.

Mcqueen and Lee:

https://screenrant.com/bruce-lee-ste...lry-explained/

That article you mention says specifically:

"Bruce Lee had a rich and storied friendship — and rivalry — with fellow big screen icon Steve McQueen. Both Lee and McQueen were two of the biggest actors of their era, but they also hailed from two different worlds. Lee was a rising star in the martial arts movie industry, while McQueen was an A-list actor in Hollywood and a household name."

"As furious as this made Lee, they remained friends. One popular story about their friendship involves them going for a drive, and Lee being terrified by McQueen’s ridiculously fast driving. Their bond survived that and more, as did their rivalry. After making a few movies, Lee wrote a letter to McQueen, claiming that he was now the bigger star. McQueen humorously responded with a photo of himself signed, “To Bruce, my biggest fan”. Following Bruce Lee’s death, the strength of their relationship was demonstrated when McQueen served as a pallbearer at the actor’s funeral."

The fact is that it was a nuanced friendship between two grown up men that you have totally mischaracterized and misread as some kind of petty rivalry all to justify and make what Tarantino did somehow in the right at the end.

[godisawesome]

As far as Lee's portrayal, one example I can give is Steve Mcqueen. Mcqueen was a student of Lee's but they weren't close friends. Lee was very jealous and competitive of Mcqueen at the time, as Mcqueen was a huge star. So, in the movie, the idea of some random stuntman like Cliff trying to upstage him makes his reaction to Cliff credible. He wasn't exactly a handshake and hug kind of guy.

“Not exactly a handshake and hug kind of guy” does not equal “foolish plot-tool humbled by OC” for other historical characters, particularly in their area of expertise.

QT took a shortcut without thinking through all the variables on an area of ignorance, and is thin-skinned enough to react badly to that being pointed out. He's still a great talent, but he has trouble admitting an apathetic brain-fart on his part.

[Kirby101]

I will go with his great friend and student Kareem Abdul Jabbar here.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Bruce Lee Was My Friend, and Tarantino’s Movie Disrespects Him

[numberthirty]

Yeah, I agree with that saying it's a work of fiction. I think QT's wording could have been better telling everyone other than BL's daughter to go suck a d*ck.

Or...

The guy could act his age and not his shoe size.

That was absolutely an option last I heard.

[Adam Allen]

I am a big fan of Tarantino's work. I'm pretty sure I have seen every one of his movies, and I enjoyed Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I really think it the best movie he's made in a quite a while, at least it's the one I've enjoyed the most, of his more recent work. I think it works well, on a lot of different levels.

All that said, I do think he screwed up with his portrayal of Bruce Lee, and I think it's pretty unfortunate that he can't acknowledge that. I don't imagine that he meant any harm, but it's one thing to make a mistake and learn from it, and own up to it being a mistake, and another to just stubbornly stick to your guns about it.

Unfortunately, I can't say I'm particularly surprised Tarantino would be a jerk about the criticisms of how he portrayed Lee, because for as much as I enjoy his movies, my impression has been that Tarantino really kind of a jerk, in general. Talented guy, but no one I'd be particularly interested in knowing, in person.