It all came crumbling down for American ideals in 1969. As hippies were preaching “flower power” and genuine notions of compassion and human empathy, Charles Manson came into the picture to crush dreams and pervert the message of peace with his own nightmarish vision of America. Claiming to be one of these free thinking hipsters, Manson had a different agenda; he was an agent of the dark side of cultural change. The Manson murders, along with the Altamont Speedway incident, most notably featured in the Rolling Stones documentary “Gimme Shelter,” essentially ended the flower movement and brought the country back to reality. A very grim reality. It was the end of an era. Manson is, more or less, at least symbolically, regarded by many as the main contributor to America’s lost innocence.
So, we know Quentin Tarantino‘s ninth feature film will be set in Los Angeles during the late ’60s, and will have the Manson killings serving as the backdrop to the story. QT has even tried to separate his film from Manson by recently revealing that his latest is “not Charles Manson, it’s 1969.” Sony Pictures won the distribution rights to the film and have greenlit it for a budget of $100 million. We also know that Margot Robbie is being sought for the role of Sharon Tate, and that Deadline mentioned that the two male lead roles were being circled around by no less than Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio.
The first plot details, thanks to Vanity Fair, have the film focusing on a failed TV actor and his stunt double, who are both looking to make it into the movie biz:
“Set in Los Angeles in the summer of 1969, Tarantino’s upcoming movie, according to a source who read the script, focuses on a male TV actor who’s had one hit series and his looking for a way to get into the film business. His sidekick—who’s also his stunt double—is looking for the same thing. The horrific murder of Sharon Tate and four of her friends by Charles Manson’s cult of followers serves as a backdrop to the main story.”
The first question I might ask after reading this is, aside from wondering how close the vibe might be to “Inherent Vice,” a film set in the same time period with a similar, though subtler backdrop, is who is seeking revenge in this movie if anyone at all? We have been so used to QT tackling revenge fantasies in his Post-“Jackie Brown” phase (“Kill Bill,” “Inglourious Basterds,” “Death Proof,” “Django Unchained,” “The Hateful Eight“) that we have taken for granted just how good his first three movies really were. Yes, “Reservoir Dogs,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Jackie Brown” were all ultra violent crime movies, but they also had something that his latter-day movies lacked: a sense of reality. Tarantino has all but escaped the real world with his last five films and instead opted to concentrate on over-the-top fantasies that, while entertaining, have severely deviated away from the spirit of his ’90s fare. Could he be circling back? Reading about what his ninth film could be, perhaps sprawling and shambling in the same way “Pulp Fiction” was, makes one wonder if maybe, just maybe, the 54-year-old director is going back to basics and might offer something other than the bloody, familiar vengeance we’ve been soaked with for years.