Now that Killers of the Flower Moon is finally out in theaters, the word ‘revisionist’ has been used by critics and audiences alike to describe the film’s genre. However, this is not the first time a modern auteur like Martin Scorsese has used revisionism to break storytelling conventions. Quentin Tarantino is known for using this technique to retell true stories with a sense of how he would go back in time and change reality. Let’s take a look at what revisionism is and how directors like Tarantino and Scorsese use it in their films.
True events from ‘Once Upon A Time.. in Hollywood’
There’s one film in Quentin Tarantino’s illustrious filmography that somehow stands out from the rest, the most recent one. Case in point: Once Upon A Time.. in Hollywood. Right from the film’s announcement, word had started to spread that Tarantino’s latest outing was centered on the infamous Manson Family murders.
For the uninitiated, the Manson murders happened in 1969, when four members of a cult family ritualistically killed a pregnant Sharon Tate, an up-and-coming actress in her late twenties and wife of director Roman Polanski, along with four of her friends who had been with her at her Beverly Hills residence, on that fateful night.
This alarming incident left a drastic impact on America’s sense of safety and its perception of cult worshippers, an effect which can still be felt even today, five decades after the incident. Simply put, almost everyone knows the Sharon Tate story.
What does ‘revisionism’ mean?
While interpreting any work of fiction, revisionism denotes the retelling of a conventional or established narrative with significant variations that deliberately “revise” the view shown in the original work.
There have been many instances where filmmakers employ this technique to shake things up by narrating the story from the perspective of someone who has been continuously antagonized, dehumanized, or victimized in other works of popular culture.
Revisionism has been particularly useful in giving a voice to characters that have been oppressed to create more empathy among the audience. An appropriate example would be the 1990 film Dances with Wolves, which depicts Native Americans sympathetically instead of mindless savages of other Westerns.
How did Quentin Tarantino use revisionism in OUATIH?
Fans of Tarantino who were hyped up for the movie were also skeptical of how the film would be received. This is mainly due to the fact that they knew the exact events that would unfold on screen and if they would be able to enjoy the film as much as someone who had no idea about the incident.
This question kept lingering and there seemed to be nothing that could convince some skeptics, regardless of being reassured by the standing ovation at Cannes, a brilliant set of trailers and exceptional word-of-mouth from critics all over the world.
But it was only after watching the film for the first time that many realized that the answer to their question about the film was in the film itself and, more specifically, the twist ending in its third and final act.
As ironic as it may sound, in a film about the murder of Sharon Tate, she doesn’t die. Instead, she is saved by her fictional neighbors Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth, and we have a proper “.. and they lived happily after” ending.
The impact of revisionism on films based on true stories
With this decision, Tarantino almost single-handedly tampers with recorded history and turns a devastating event into an elaborate fairy tale. This is right there in the title: “Once Upon A Time.. in Hollywood”. It’s his way of telling us that it’s going to be a fairy tale but also one of the saddest films of his entire career.
Surprisingly, the first plot point to be developed was this ending, and everything else moved backwards from there, this being the first time Tarantino had worked this way. This decision expectedly turned a lot of heads and led to full-fledged debate, but to properly understand this controversial creative choice, one has to observe it from the perspective of revisionism.
However, Tarantino goes a step further by not just changing the narrative perspective but by altering a crucial plot point in the adaptation of an actual incident. And this is not the first time he has done it. His filmography has shifted from offbeat crime dramas towards retelling historical events as if they are set in a different universe, his own cinematic universe.
This sense of revisionist filmmaking has been evident right from the fictional Nazi apocalypse in Inglorious Basterds or the brutal and profane redemption of a slave in Django Unchained.
Why do film directors choose to revise reality?
Tarantino exercises his role as a bold and unapologetic historian to erase incidents without which he believes the world would be a better place. And here, he directs our attention more towards Sharon Tate’s humanity and simultaneously fulfills his desire to have the general population see her in a different light than we are accustomed to.
sharon tate, 1967 pic.twitter.com/8OXEN31hyb
— dakota (@dialdfordakota) October 20, 2023
In fact, he has been vocal about these creative decisions in multiple interviews and press conferences. He believes it is unfortunate that Sharon Tate has become to be defined by her murder and not for her life. This is why Tarantino chose to just show her hanging out in Los Angeles and humanize her.
Therefore, one could argue that the film is Tarantino’s attempt at creating a sense of poetic justice for Sharon Tate, who embodies his vision of Hollywood in the 60s. It’s almost as if he’s having a spiritual conversation with her, contemplating on how things could’ve turned out differently and how we’ve failed her as a society.
