Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Trailer) (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

So I just watched a fairy tale?

Heh, that was worth the time. Don't think I need to watch it again or figure out what Tarantino wanted but it was typical Tarantino - meta, playing to genre, funny, ironic, almost senselessly violent.

I'm not sure how good it is relative to other stuff because I'm not watching other serious movies/cinema coming out these days, but I enjoyed it. 

 

[TheIronSheik]

I do think what he expected viewers to know and what is fair to expect viewers to know is an interesting question here. I just know I would have been turned off if we saw a QT version of the real life events of the slaughter of a pregnant women and her friends. 

I didn't think they'd show it.  Honestly, I was expecting Leo to hear about it or have it somehow affect him in a way that got him back into the limelight of Hollywood.  It would have been a similar ending, but without them changing history.

 

[TheIronSheik]

But that's a recurring theme of Tarantino movies.  Kill Bill, IB, and Django are all basically "just" revenge fantasies.  

Yes, but only IB was based on actual historical figures, and like I said, you knew going into it that they were going to take down Hitler.  If IB had been played like it was a serious historical account of WWII with some made up people hunting Nazis, only for it to end with them killing Hitler, I don't know if I would have liked that movie as much, either.  

 

[rockaction]

By the way, I knew the background story very well, to the point where I can remember Bobby Beausoleil (likely Tex in the movie) and his famous picture of him posed in downtown L.A. in front of trippy-font garffiti reading "Do What Thou Wilt," an old Aleister Crowley maxim.

I thought this was a contemporary or fantastical Western, and it worked interestingly. Pretty cool that they had that scenic element of a Western as a decayed and ***tional Hollywood set when Pitt rides into town with #####cat and when Leo acts with the little girl and Timothy Olyhpant in his television "heavy" scenes. It was interesting, the juxtaposition of the old West and Western tropes and morality juxtaposed against Hollywood, circa 1969.

Leo and Pitt are, as many people have noted, awesome in the film. Lots of heavyweight performances. Cool stuff. 

And looming in the foreground is the question: What if the Tate murders hadn't happened, and Hollywood had remained, to a degree, blissfully unaware of itself and what it sold? If there had been no self-reflexive postmodern thought about good and evil happening in real life in their own backyard?

Just an interesting thought experiment of a movie, in a way. At least to me. A neatly deconstructed Western, perhaps? People more in the know than me could probably answer more clearly. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

I do think what he expected viewers to know and what is fair to expect viewers to know is an interesting question here. I just know I would have been turned off if we saw a QT version of the real life events of the slaughter of a pregnant women and her friends. 

I think it's also interesting to think about and talk about if there is a certain level of knowledge a viewer should have before entering the movie, or is most of that responsibility on the filmmaker to get that across in the movie?  

 

[rockaction]

I think it's also interesting to think about and talk about if there is a certain level of knowledge a viewer should have before entering the movie, or is most of that responsibility on the filmmaker to get that across in the movie?  

It was an interesting device. if you don't know about Tate and Polanski, you don't get that backdrop of, as one poster put it, terror hanging over the film. The backstory becomes part story of the film, unwritten, which is also a way of conveniently skirting your question because who knows the right answer to that one?

One instructive bit of history regarding cultural literacy, as some call it, can be found in the debates over E.d. Hirsch's Cultural Literacy compendium and attendant argument, a book that attempted to tell Americans what works of art and academia they needed to know in order to have a shared culture and common intellectual vernacular. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._D._Hirsch

 

[KarmaPolice]

It was an interesting device. if you don't know about Tate and Polanski, you don't get that backdrop of, as one poster put it, terror hanging over the film. The backstory becomes part story of the film, unwritten, which is also a way of conveniently skirting your question because who knows the right answer to that one?

One instructive bit of history regarding cultural literacy, as some call it, can be found in the debates over E.d. Hirsch's Cultural Literacy compendium and attendant argument, a book that attempted to tell Americans what works of art and academia they needed to know in order to have a shared culture and common intellectual vernacular. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._D._Hirsch

I posted about it when I saw it.  I listened to the season of You Must Remember This right before I saw the movie.  If I had not, I would have had damn near 0 knowledge of the backdrop for the movie.  For example - I had never heard of Spahn Ranch until about 2 days before seeing the movie.  

It' for sure added to the enjoyment of the movie, but what I left wrestling with is questioning should a movie require that level of knowledge from it's audience or should there be a little more context in the movie?    

 

[Ilov80s]

I didn't think they'd show it.  Honestly, I was expecting Leo to hear about it or have it somehow affect him in a way that got him back into the limelight of Hollywood.  It would have been a similar ending, but without them changing history.

Does that sound like something Tarantino would do? I can't think of a QT movie without several murders and plenty of graphic violence. 

And it wouldn't have been anywhere close to the same ending. 

 

[Ilov80s]

I posted about it when I saw it.  I listened to the season of You Must Remember This right before I saw the movie.  If I had not, I would have had damn near 0 knowledge of the backdrop for the movie.  For example - I had never heard of Spahn Ranch until about 2 days before seeing the movie.  

It' for sure added to the enjoyment of the movie, but what I left wrestling with is questioning should a movie require that level of knowledge from it's audience or should there be a little more context in 

the movie?    

It definitely added to the cultural awareness and understanding of the Mansion Family and their crimes.  I recommended to several people to at least listen to the first episode of that podcast as it gives all the needed info to understand the movie. Most of them told me the podcast was really helpful and after the movie they finished the podcast. Of those people, a few of them told me they made the same recommendation to others. That is tough to pull off but Tarantino is one of the few directors who could do it. He has a built in audience and the ability to recruit mega-stars so that his films have a safe floor at the box office. He is also has the ability to get the hype needed to convince potential viewers to go out of their way to learn about the events a bit before seeing the movie. 

I think there is a real interesting comparison out there to be made between Once Upon a Time In Hollywood and The Irishman  (I Heard You Paint Houses). Both play in a similar time frame and cover a culture and people that no longer exist. They are historical but are free to play with that history. Obviously, The Irishman sticks much closer to reality, but a lot of the film is reliant on confessions of a dying man. There are many other confessions and theories about the death of Hoffa and attempts to firmly link Frank Sheeran to the murder have come up empty. While both endings are fantasies about what might have been or could have been or how we wish it was, Once Upon a Time's conclusion is that if things went different, guys like Rick Dalton could have kept on and that Old Guard Hollywood culture could have survived.  The Irishman's conclusions says, "What does it matter? We will all disappear in the end." 

 

[rockaction]

Once Upon a Time's conclusion is that if things went different, guys like Rick Dalton could have kept on and that Old Guard Hollywood culture could have survived.  The Irishman's conclusions says, "What does it matter? We will all disappear in the end." 

I was struck by that in Once Upon A Time also. And given that old Hollywood would have been intellectually, creatively, and financially not disposed to reach out to the seventies directors and their deconstructors, like Tarantino, it adds to the oddness of the longing. I mean, Tarantino has definitely begun to introduce the anti-hero even within his own deconstructed 1969 Western, so it might be coming anyway, but it might not have been the generational break one saw between Tate's Hollywood and directors like Coppola and Scorcese and post-Tate Polanski, and also their intellectual heirs like Tarantino, who was bound to deconstruct seventies tropes. The Irishman's take on the inevitabilities of a dialectic between generations, if I'm understanding you, posits that this shift might have happened anyway, just less confrontational and seismic than what we know to be true both in life and in entertainment. 

 

[Ilov80s]

I was struck by that in Once Upon A Time also. And given that old Hollywood would have been intellectually, creatively, and financially not disposed to reach out to the seventies directors and their deconstructors, like Tarantino, it adds to the oddness of the longing. I mean, Tarantino has definitely begun to introduce the anti-hero even within his own deconstructed 1969 Western, so it might be coming anyway, but it might not have been the generational break one saw between Tate's Hollywood and directors like Coppola and Scorcese and post-Tate Polanski, and also their intellectual heirs like Tarantino, who was bound to deconstruct seventies tropes. The Irishman's take on the inevitabilities of a dialectic between generations, if I'm understanding you, posits that this shift might have happened anyway, just less confrontational and seismic than what we know to be true both in life and in entertainment. 

Interesting thought there. Longing for something to have not changed when it was that change that made your existence possible. That would make a good question for Tarantino. 

As for The Irishman, I think I can say without spoiling it (sorry guys, Hoffa doesn't fight off his assassins with a flame thrower), the theme seems to be that all things end. Obviously they die physically, but also the memories and the significance of them disappear. So I think you nailed it. Do cataclysmic events actually shift histories? Or are they just markers we people assign value to so we can better understand a life that is slowly fading out of our grips. 

 

[rockaction]

Do cataclysmic events actually shift histories? Or are they just markers we people assign value to so we can better understand a life that is slowly fading out of our grips. 

Word. Nailed what I was to sum up from what was posited by you much more clearly. Danke. I remember reading novelist and now playwright and scriptwriter Colm Toibin, and his The Heather Blazing took this up in book form, and was an an interesting study of a judge and the shifting social realities in Ireland. I only bring that book up because the of his metaphor. He used the concept of an erosion wearing away houses on cliffs so that people who were otherwise totally with it were living in homes whose edifices were eaten away gradually, but radically.

Like an exposed living room on a cliff from gradual wear, that which normally would induce panic was just lived around and the new reality just accepted as inevitable and not fixable. That, he argued, is how these changes happen, which is different than a backfire and a jump and an attempt at repair. 

Not sure which I agree with, just trying to suss out the issue. 

 

[tommyboy]

this was a very good movie-  very good.    I loved the ending actually because like inglorious basterds, it takes an historical atrocity and mocks it.  There is a catharsis at play.

I thought the Brad Pitt/Leonardo DiCaprio chemistry was outstanding.    

I did feel thought that this movie wouldn't make much sense to a 17 or 25 year old that didn't grow up during the Manson timeframe.   

 

[need2know]

It was ok.  Not one of my fav tarentino films though.  Honestly I was expecting a bit more.

 

[James Daulton]

Great movie with tons of subtlety and innuendo.  Clever script and pacing too.  Top 5 for QT.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'm not even sure I know what the plot of the movie was.  It was a fun ride, but I'm still trying to figure out, what was the movie about?

 

[bigmarc27]

I'm not even sure I know what the plot of the movie was.  It was a fun ride, but I'm still trying to figure out, what was the movie about?

If you want the overall point, I’d say it was the alternative history where Manson didn’t bring on the death of the 60s and there was more hope and optimism before heading into the 70s. 

 

[shadyridr]

I'm not even sure I know what the plot of the movie was.  It was a fun ride, but I'm still trying to figure out, what was the movie about?

There was no plot. 

 

[TheIronSheik]

There was no plot. 

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but this is kind of what I came away with.  But up until the last scene, I was pretty sure there was a plot.  

Again, I didn't hate the movie by any means.  I'm a fan of QT, but I tend to love 50% of his movies and loathe the other half.  This one was odd because I neither loved it nor loathed it.  It was just enjoyable.  It reminded me of a story a friend tells you after 6 beers.  It's a cool story, tends to take breaks to talk about funny sub-stories, and then he makes up some weird ending that you know is a lie or at least over-exaggerated.  But that didn't matter, because it was fun listening to it.  

 

[shadyridr]

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but this is kind of what I came away with.  But up until the last scene, I was pretty sure there was a plot.  

Again, I didn't hate the movie by any means.  I'm a fan of QT, but I tend to love 50% of his movies and loathe the other half.  This one was odd because I neither loved it nor loathed it.  It was just enjoyable.  It reminded me of a story a friend tells you after 6 beers.  It's a cool story, tends to take breaks to talk about funny sub-stories, and then he makes up some weird ending that you know is a lie or at least over-exaggerated.  But that didn't matter, because it was fun listening to it.  

Wasn't joking. It was just about two guys in Hollywood and their daily lives. 

 

[Courtjester]

Loved it. Wife and I watched it with our girls two nights ago. They were kind of meh to the movie, but they didn't know the backstory. Like someone else mentioned, I just sat there with a sense of dread of what I thought was coming. Even as the movie was ending, I expected QT to have a 2nd car come up the street. 

Fantastic sets--every scene was perfectly shot.  QT is hit or miss with me, but I can't wait to watch the movie again. 

 

[fruity pebbles]

I love it but I’m just happy to go to any well acted original movie that we haven’t seen ten times before. I’m so sick of Star Wars, Marvel, remakes etc. 

 

[TLEF316]

watched this yesterday. Really liked it (due to Pitt and Leo's performances)  but didn't LOVE it. (due to what was kinda a non-plot like others have said)   I wasn't familiar with the details of the Manson murders so I didn't really get a sense of where things were going. Obviously I know who Charles Manson was and I knew that members of his "family" had committed some high profile murders but I didn't realize what this what until I googled Sharon Tate like halfway through the movie and saw that she died in 1969. Then I obviously put it together. Up until that point, I just sort of assumed that that Pitt visiting the ranch was just a weird little side-story.

Pitt was awesome throughout the movie (although not a challenging role for him) and I loved the Bruce Lee scene.  During the ending, it was pretty obvious what his weapons were going to be, but it still cracked me up when it started.

I'm not a huge Tarrantino fan, but I like most of his stuff. I'm sure this puts me in the minority, but I actually like his newer stuff (Like Django and IB) more than Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. (thought Jackie Brown was insanely boring)  Hateful 8 didn't really do it for me but I loved the Kill Bill movies.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Caught this on a plane over the hols and really enjoyed it.  Partly for the nostalgia, but mostly just for the acting and believable characters.

Re: plot... QT pays homage to a lot of the stuff from "old Hollywood" (the studio system, Dean Martin, TV Westerns, etc), and the movie seems like an elegy to that time/place.

Joan Didion wrote a famous essay that argued that the Manson Murders were the night the 60s ended and that Hollywood in particular was never the same. 

So by rewriting the ending QT is "saving" the Hollywood that's gone now.  The last scene is literally Rick Dalton meeting his hot, trendy, "it" neighbors -- and maybe getting the second shot he'd hoped for all along.

 

[simey]

By the way, I knew the background story very well, to the point where I can remember Bobby Beausoleil (likely Tex in the movie) and his famous picture of him posed in downtown L.A. in front of trippy-font garffiti reading "Do What Thou Wilt," an old Aleister Crowley maxim.

I think Tex in the movie was Tex Watson. Tex Watson was part of the Manson group that killed everyone at Tate's house and killed the LaBiancas.

 

[James Daulton]

Caught this on a plane over the hols and really enjoyed it.  Partly for the nostalgia, but mostly just for the acting and believable characters.

Re: plot... QT pays homage to a lot of the stuff from "old Hollywood" (the studio system, Dean Martin, TV Westerns, etc), and the movie seems like an elegy to that time/place.

Joan Didion wrote a famous essay that argued that the Manson Murders were the night the 60s ended and that Hollywood in particular was never the same. 

So by rewriting the ending QT is "saving" the Hollywood that's gone now.  The last scene is literally Rick Dalton meeting his hot, trendy, "it" neighbors -- and maybe getting the second shot he'd hoped for all along.

Yep, there was lots of tribute and subtlety in this move.  Kind of an homage to old hollywood. 

Great stuff. 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

There's an extended cut in theaters now with ten more minutes of content.  The additional scenes are two commercials at the beginning and a couple of post-credits scenes from the fake Westerns.  The kid actress gets more screentime in the latter and James Marsden' appears as Burt Reynolds in one of the commercials.

There are about 20 minutes or so of extras on the blu-ray, including these commercials and cuts from the fake westerns.  There's also a great scene between Dalton and the director (who is supposed to be Sam Wanamaker) talking on the set about the young girl actor and other things.  It seems like 100% ad-lib, and I get why it didn't make the movie, but its a great scene.  There is also a more extended scene from the Lancer program that introduces the Luke Perry and Tim Olyphant characters.  That one is also good and could easily have made the movie, but I get why its not that important to the plot.

Fantastic movie. Definitely one of my favorites of the year.

 

[rockaction]

I think Tex in the movie was Tex Watson. Tex Watson was part of the Manson group that killed everyone at Tate's house and killed the LaBiancas.

Good call, simey. I might have mixed that up.

 

[Copeman]

Watched it last night.  I'd rank it in the middle in regards to the movies he has put out.  Good performances, but no real scenes that stick out.  I like his movies for the dialogue, and there weren't many scenes that had memorable dialogue like Pulp Fiction and IB.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Watched it last night.  I'd rank it in the middle in regards to the movies he has put out.  Good performances, but no real scenes that stick out.  I like his movies for the dialogue, and there weren't many scenes that had memorable dialogue like Pulp Fiction and IB.

The Bruce Lee scene was what you are describing for me.  

 

[Ilov80s]

Watched it last night.  I'd rank it in the middle in regards to the movies he has put out.  Good performances, but no real scenes that stick out.  I like his movies for the dialogue, and there weren't many scenes that had memorable dialogue like Pulp Fiction and IB.

The 8 whisky sours scene is the best of Leo’s career imo. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

The 8 whisky sours scene is the best of Leo’s career imo. 

I loved the scene with him and the little girl just as much.  

 

[Ilov80s]

I loved the scene with him and the little girl just as much.  

Oh yeah that was really fantastic too- great call

 

[KarmaPolice]

I haven't listened to the rest of the pod, but I was listening to Filmspotting's top of 2019 podcast, and was shocked that only 1 of them had this movie in their top 10.  They usually lean pretty film snobby, and thought this would be up their alley (especially when they hinted that there was a consensus #1 between the four of them - I figured this might be it ).  Uncut Gems also only on one of their lists.   Now I am guessing Marriage Story at #1.  

 

[Ilov80s]

I haven't listened to the rest of the pod, but I was listening to Filmspotting's top of 2019 podcast, and was shocked that only 1 of them had this movie in their top 10.  They usually lean pretty film snobby, and thought this would be up their alley (especially when they hinted that there was a consensus #1 between the four of them - I figured this might be it ).  Uncut Gems also only on one of their lists.   Now I am guessing Marriage Story at #1.  

Parasite?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Parasite?

Yeah.  I misheard, wasnt consensus #1, just one movie that was on all 4 lists.  

Mostly the beef with Once Upon A Time was with the ending and QT indulging in those tendencies.  I get that.  

 

[Daywalker]

Was Tarantantino taking a dig at Polanski with the scene with Pitt and the young chick on the way to the ranch?  

 

[gump]

Finally got to see this...big QT fan...absolutely loved it.  Really felt like I was in Hollywood in 1969.  Pitt was good but thought Leo was fantastic.

It was impossible not to know the historically altered ending...but i was picturing something much different...so it still pleasantly surprised me.

Question on the Tate murders after watching this ending...I've never read any details on the murders themselves...how could those 3 over-power anyone?  I know Sebring was tiny but still.  Did they shoot first?

 

[otb_lifer]

i thought Pitt was sleepwalkin' thru this ... a hybrid of Billy Beane ("Moneyball") and Floyd ("True Romance") ... DiCaprio was his usual slightly more interesting than wallpaper self - Pacino reprising Richard Roma, repleat with kitschy late '60s trappings.   awful.  

the premise was cool enough, and i dug the homage to that era of Hollywood ... very well done, in a love letter motif, as it were - but it was a bunch of nothing that culminated in nowhere.   if i had to suffer this #### as a paying customer in a theater i'da throat punched a mutha ####er   thank heavens for streaming. 

the ending was ridiculous, if not utterly hysterical, in that QT "OOOOOOHHHHHH, IM'MA SHOCK EVERYONE CUZ I'M SO EDGY" tired trope.  he thinks it's revenge porn, but it's actually akin to watching a demented 5 yr old have their dolls maul each other ... ####in' pathetic. 

A+ for ambiance, and for a few of the petformances ... but a complete and total F-  in total. 

Was Tarantantino taking a dig at Polanski with the scene with Pitt and the young chick on the way to the ranch?  

nah, that chick wasn't 13 

 

[coyote5]

i thought Pitt was sleepwalkin' thru this ... a hybrid of Billy Beane ("Moneyball") and Floyd ("True Romance") ... DiCaprio was his usual slightly more interesting than wallpaper self - Pacino reprising Richard Roma, repleat with kitschy late '60s trappings.   awful.  

the premise was cool enough, and i dug the homage to that era of Hollywood ... very well done, in a love letter motif, as it were - but it was a bunch of nothing that culminated in nowhere.   if i had to suffer this #### as a paying customer in a theater i'da throat punched a mutha ####er   thank heavens for streaming. 

the ending was ridiculous, if not utterly hysterical, in that QT "OOOOOOHHHHHH, IM'MA SHOCK EVERYONE CUZ I'M SO EDGY" tired trope.  he thinks it's revenge porn, but it's actually akin to watching a demented 5 yr old have their dolls maul each other ... ####in' pathetic. 

A+ for ambiance, and for a few of the petformances ... but a complete and total F-  in total. 

nah, that chick wasn't 13 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUsNLd9jgio

 

[Ilov80s]

i thought Pitt was sleepwalkin' thru this ... a hybrid of Billy Beane ("Moneyball") and Floyd ("True Romance") ... DiCaprio was his usual slightly more interesting than wallpaper self - Pacino reprising Richard Roma, repleat with kitschy late '60s trappings.   awful.  

the premise was cool enough, and i dug the homage to that era of Hollywood ... very well done, in a love letter motif, as it were - but it was a bunch of nothing that culminated in nowhere.   if i had to suffer this #### as a paying customer in a theater i'da throat punched a mutha ####er   thank heavens for streaming. 

the ending was ridiculous, if not utterly hysterical, in that QT "OOOOOOHHHHHH, IM'MA SHOCK EVERYONE CUZ I'M SO EDGY" tired trope.  he thinks it's revenge porn, but it's actually akin to watching a demented 5 yr old have their dolls maul each other ... ####in' pathetic. 

A+ for ambiance, and for a few of the petformances ... but a complete and total F-  in total. 

Literally the exact opposite of my opinion 

 

[Ilov80s]

Finally got to see this...big QT fan...absolutely loved it.  Really felt like I was in Hollywood in 1969.  Pitt was good but thought Leo was fantastic.

It was impossible not to know the historically altered ending...but i was picturing something much different...so it still pleasantly surprised me.

Question on the Tate murders after watching this ending...I've never read any details on the murders themselves...how could those 3 over-power anyone?  I know Sebring was tiny but still.  Did they shoot first?

There was a guy outside who they shot and stabbed. Inside the house I don’t think they shot anyone. The threat of the gun and knives was used to tie them up and then stab them all. Also Tex Watson is a big guy in real life so he would be strong and intimidating. The podcast You Must Remember This has a whole season dedicated to this subject and it’s fascinating. 

 

[Eephus]

Literally the exact opposite of my opinion 

Well the ending was kind of ridiculous

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Well the ending was kind of ridiculous

The idea that someone could buy an LSD-laced cigarette (for 50 cents?), carry it around for a few days, then smoke it and start tripping is absurd.  I'm not a chemist, but I've done enough acid to know that is just stupid.

 

[Ilov80s]

Well the ending was kind of ridiculous

It was ridiculously funny 

 

[otb_lifer]

Literally the exact opposite of my opinion 

and i'll respectfully acknowledge that all taste/critique/opinion is a personal matter, never cookie cutter or absolute in either direction. 

i know you're a cat who has a passion for the cinema, your participation in the threads i've been a part of has always been welcomed and apprecitated - you know things. 

but we not even remotely close here ... so be it 

 

[Ilov80s]

and i'll respectfully acknowledge that all taste/critique/opinion is a personal matter, never cookie cutter or absolute in either direction. 

i know you're a cat who has a passion for the cinema, your participation in the threads i've been a part of has always been welcomed and apprecitated - you know things. 

but we not even remotely close here ... so be it 

All good. Like you say, art is always  subjective.

 

[gump]

There was a guy outside who they shot and stabbed. Inside the house I don’t think they shot anyone. The threat of the gun and knives was used to tie them up and then stab them all. Also Tex Watson is a big guy in real life so he would be strong and intimidating. The podcast You Must Remember This has a whole season dedicated to this subject and it’s fascinating. 

Manson picked the house because of the producer who lived there before Polanski that didn’t get him a music deal, right?  Not because he knew a hairdresser, two socialites, and Tate would be there. Bruce Lee spent time there. Who knows who could have been there that night. I love the ending.

 

[Ilov80s]

Manson picked the house because of the producer who lived there before Polanski that didn’t get him a music deal, right?  Not because he knew a hairdresser, two socialites, and Tate would be there. Bruce Lee spent time there. Who knows who could have been there that night. I love the ending.

Yes I believe he picked it because he had been there before. He wasn’t targeting Melcher specifically. I think it was just that he knew wealthy somewhat famous white people lived there. His goal was to trigger a race war and especially to get one of his accomplices out of jail. That guy killed a drug dealer and tried to make the scene look like it was a racially motivated murder by The Black Panthers. After his arrest, Manson had the idea to do a copycat crime so the cops will connect them and think they had the wrong guy in the killing of the drug dealer.

 

[rockaction]

This is some high-level jujitsu regarding the plot. Who did the what in the what?  I must have to watch this again for clarity's sake.

or for Margot