You Won’t Believe what Movie is in the Same Cinematic Universe as Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood
Spoilers ahead for Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood and historical events of 1969.
In the “9th film from Quentin Tarantino” (but who’s counting?), Charles Manson’s followers reason they aught to kill the fictional tv star Rick Dalton who “taught them to be violent” through his cowboy tv show. In reality, Manson and his followers murdered the actress Sharon Tate and her friends based on delusions of white supremacy, visions of the apocalypse, and perhaps the worst lyrical analysis the world has ever known (Manson was obsessed with Beatles and made their lyrics fit his twisted worldview). But in the film there is no mention of the Beatles and of course the murders do not play out as they did in reality. So why? Is it because Quinty wants to analyze the idea of depiction equating endorsement or is it because in this universe the Beatles… never existed.
That’s right. Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood exists in the same universe as Danny Boyle’s and Richard Curtis’ Yesterday, in which a millennial musician wakes up in a world where the Beatles never existed and therefore can plagiarize them, follow their career to a tee, and replicate their exact stardom in the year 2019. Yep, the romcom everyone laughed at for its ridiculous premise, shares a cinematic universe with the bro-iest movie of 2019. So yeah… cool… anyway what does this mean? Are Quentin Tarantino, Danny Boyle, and Richard Curtis in a text thread where they romanticize the movies and music of back-in-their-day? Probably. In Yesterday, does Jack Malik watch Rick Dalton in Bounty Law or Operazionne Dyn-o-mite? I say yes. And all because the Beatles don’t exist. Wow. They truly are a cultural linchpin on par with Harambe. Could I be losing my mind, wondering in which movies the beloved European rock band exists in which they don’t? No.
Ultimately, like most fan theories, who even cares? What does this mean? Nothing. At least, nothing about the content of the movies, but maybe something about our reality.
What they share beyond a cinematic universe is a wistful longing for a way things could have turned out, and a desire to have been a part of, at the center of that other world. Both movies follow fictional artists in the shadow of real people who long for legitimacy in a canonized yet passé medium. Jack Malik of Yesterday searches for success as a songwriter at the sacrifice of his own voice, while Rick Dalton of Hollywood eventually proves his own ability as an actor, his own voice, but still finds himself in an industry which is through with him. He’s a “has-been”
They’re the same archetype of the artist’s at different ends facing diametric dilemmas. Malik sells out early and is resigned to the machine of the music industry, Dalton is never given the chance to sell out and is resigned to his own questionable ability. Dalton never could sell out like Malik (obviously nobody could) but he longs not only for a tent-poll multi-picture deal to secure him, but also to be good, to be a part of the cannon. His younger costar describes their vocation as “to strive for one hundred percent effectiveness naturally, we never succeed but it’s the pursuit that’s meaningful.”
Of course, telling is retelling just as much as writing is rewriting. As the author works through multiple drafts, they also work through a lineage of inspirations. Creation is recreation, sometimes procreation — multiple sources coming together to make something new, ideally with longevity. However nobody could recreate the Beatles or Dean Martin’s careers or success again. You can’t separate them from their context, or Ed Sheeran from their context either. He wouldn’t exactly exist in the same way without them. But its understandable to be inspired by them. They can only be themselves, apart of their time. It’s often an inherent reason one begins writing in the first place. All writing is inspired by one’s experience mediated against a sense of history. To an extent, all fiction starts out as fan-fiction. Everyone wants to imagine themselves as their heroes. Yet somehow, today’s cinema has gotten a bit more fan-fictiony than usual. I’m sure you’ve noticed the superhero and sci-fi galore of the 2000s and the beloved self-aware super dooper and hi-sci-fi of the 2010s. Rather than expand into new realms, studios and audiences to an extent prefer to diving into established worlds. And while there are reactionary films which directly critique the genre (looking at you Birdman), Yesterday and Hollywood interestingly also address this commodification.
In a recent podcast with director Edgar Wright, Tarantino pondered, “Is this where we live now? Take great movies from the ’70s and redo them as pop-cultural artifacts? Taxi driver is just the Joker?” Its an interesting question to ask, especially if you wrote the film entitled ‘Pulp Fiction’.
But to Tarantino, there’s a difference between Joker’s lineage and Pulp Fiction’s. Does he feel like a character in Yesterday, like one of the few people who can remember the Beatles? Except instead of the Beatles its the King of Comedy?
That tension between cultural artifacts from the 1970s and contemporary re-commodification is the premise of Yesterday: if only I knew the right words, the world would be mine like abracadabra, presto, and apparently “I’d like to be under the sea in an octopuses’ garden with you.” Apparently historical context doesn’t matter, media landscape doesn’t matter, just the right chords and the right words then I could be John Lennon… sans all the bad parts. Pay no attention to the Run for Your Life lyrics, or Revolution 9, or all the hard work, the years in Germany, or god forbid the personal life, just the sweet sellable parts! But the model Malik uses — find some preexisting IP and exploit it — is the model the entertainment industry uses today.
So really the shared universe is based not on a preexisting IP like most cinematic universes, but ironically in the idea of preexisting IP, in opposition a shared universe. I know, not that groundbreaking a realization to say two movies of the post-modern age are self-aware. But its worth identifying that the most cynical take on the nostalgia-industrial complex came from a silly Richard Curtis romcom. Even in their endings, while both protagonists chose their true selves, defeat their equally evil antagonists, the Manson family and Ed Sheeran, they give up their dreams of longevity, Malik still considers plagiarizing Harry Potter, while Dalton is given a real chance at rebuilding himself. So are we to take away that nothing new can be made anymore? All the good art was made in the 70s and that was it? No. That’s what the boomers want.
