TARANTINO TAKES A STAND
Refusal to play ball is a statement of artistic freedom, Sonny Bunch writes.
Editor’s note: This contains spoilers.
Leave it to Quentin Tarantino, a filmmaker whose demonstrates a keen understanding of the power of stories to mould our perceptions of the world, to show lesser lights how to take a stand against authoritarian repression.
Chinese officials abruptly cancelled the release of Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood in that country last week. The Hollywood Reporter says the move came after Shannon Lee, Bruce Lee’s daughter, complained to Chinese officials about its representation of her father as a boastful fool fought to a standstill by a mere stuntman. Tarantino, one of the rare directors with the power to demand final cut on his (relatively expensive) films, reportedly has no intention of re-editing the picture — not for Shannon Lee, not for Chinese censors squeamish about its graphic violence, not for any reason. So Tarantino proves yet again he is one of the most important, most interesting, most provocative and most honest filmmakers working today.
Aside from his accountants and the Sony bean counters, one can only guess how much money Tarantino is leaving on the table by sticking to his guns. But it’s a lot. On top of that are second-order financial considerations for Tarantino. Refusing to play ball with China might make studios more reluctant to back him on new projects. Even if he only has one more film in him, as he has promised, alienating revenue sources is a risky play. But for a true artist — someone with vision and confidence in it — it’s the only play to make. Tarantino’s refusal to play ball is a vital statement of artistic freedom. But it’s only half the story. That he needed to defend the integrity of his movie at all is due to the actions of scolds who give the lie to the idea that advocates for social responsibility in film are not in league with censors.
“I think part of what is so troubling to me is that it places a lot of responsibility on the audience to interpret what’s factual and what’s not factual,” Shannon
Lee told Vanity Fair on the film’s release. Lee was not referring to the fact that Tarantino flagrantly messes with the course of history by negating the Manson Family’s murders of Sharon Tate and her friends in Los Angeles. No, she was complaining about the artistic interpretation of her father as preening and cocky rather than humble and modest. Her complaint is not that audiences might have to sort through fact and fiction. It’s that Tarantino ignores her mythologizing. But he is under no obligation to back up her conception of her father.
Jen Yamato, writing in The
Los Angeles Times, noted all the ways critics of the scene believed it to be out of bounds. Jeff Yang suggested the treatment of
Bruce Lee flirted with “exploitation.”
Combined with the fact that Tarantino refused to take seriously a ridiculous question about the number of lines of dialogue Margot Robbie had as Sharon Tate, and that’s it: Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood was slapped with the most dreaded of labels: “problematic.” Of course, that designation didn’t really matter all that much, given that the vast majority of people really don’t care about these teapot tempests. If only there were a way to make the filmmaker care. By, say, partnering with a band of fascists and censoring his work with the aid of the government. Then our moral arbiters could make real change happen. Then they could truly achieve justice.
Tarantino’s refusal to revisit his film for the censors should shame not only those who would sell out Hong Kong protesters and imprisoned Uighurs so they can sell a few more sneakers and a few more movie tickets. It should also give pause to all who would denounce an artist for pursuing a vision that defies the bounds of political correctness. We’re often told that pursuing political correctness isn’t censorship — it’s just politeness. Apparently, that’s not always the case.