That was the best acting I have ever seen in my life.
Trudy Fraser, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, a 2019 movie conforming to the principles of the Unifying Colour Theory utilises at least three of the colour palettes in its overall design as well as sharing other themes of that year, such as ''doubling'', in common.
While more basic movies like Bumblebee (Yellow/Citrine), Captain Marvel (Green/Olive) or MIB International (Black) were released in phase this movie partially transcended that phasing by using more of those colours. You can see from the promotional poster above that it blends these colours in the costume designs of the three characters (green being merged with the yellow) while also being once again reminiscent of our citrinatis, rubedo and nigredo from Joker.
Quentin Tarantino is no stranger to product placement but what if instead of just advertising one company, like Kangol, you were advertising a set of colours that everyone in the cartel was going to be using that year?
It would make all of those companies' efforts a lot cheaper because they would be bulk purchasing dye and bulk ordering textiles in hitherto unknown acts of corporate synergy. If you want everyone to be wearing colour x a couple of months from now, your influencers have to be working ahead of time to boost sales. At that time in 2019 the shops were absolutely full of these colours. These are the enormous financial and organizational benefits of something like the Unifying Colour Theory regardless of its more baroque symbolism and occult significance.
If this overarching theory is correct certain directors would have to be in the know to some extent when they get their instructions regarding pallette, symbolism, etc from the Studios. The pallette for this film features only licks and hints of green and being shown strongest in Kurt Russell's character above. How much the directors are in the know would be interesting to find out but this strange little song clip from the movie - Green Door - might be an example of a director actually knowing there is more but not being privy to those meetings and wanting to know.
Midnight, one more night without sleeping,
Watching, till the morning comes creeping,
Green Door, what's that secret you're keeping?
Green Door, what's that secret you're keeping?
Why does this pop up for a random minute? Is this Quentin, not party to ''the Green Team'', voicing curiosity about what is behind that Green Door?
The primary theme of this movie is the act of doubling/copying and the director explores this conceit in a variety of different ways. Theses explorations fall into part of a pattern for 2019 and 2020 which included many films on doubling - Gemini Man's younger vs older self, Us's russet clad clones, Infinity Wars' ''time clones'', Living with Yourself's Paul Rudds - and in terms of psychologically priming the population our future will be increasingly bound up with a double of sorts. The outlook on 6G suggests we will be sending digital clones to do ''work'' for us - digital clones at the moment are being/have been created by analysis of all of your audio video and text transmissions on the net, and will do things, in the beginning, like suggest how you would write your email etc. These clones though, because of the nature of their creation - internet searches, your frivolous chatter - are bound up with material desires of various forms and more bereft of your higher impulses. As there is a feedback loop from this shadow self, i.e. your desires are presented back to you as suggestions for further desires, many people are entraining themselves with their own shadow self i.e. the alchemical process ran in reverse. Again, as overwhelmingly sad as this is, these reversed inverted people are easier to market things at.
While the following scenes are presented as questions relating to acting theory you can apply them to your own Jungian psychological processes as well as any social engineering
To what extent when you are playing someone who really existed is your job to study their likeness, behaviour, mannerisms and a present a performative clone, i.e. to what extent is any actor engaged in this actively doubling?
In a vignette, Dalton plays a character that is a callback to Brad Pitt's Lieutenant from Inglorious Bastards, is he playing Brad Pitt playing that Lieutenant, aping his style, or is this is own interpretation of the same character? And in hindsight the twin use of the flamethrower, bookending the film clearly links the Hollywood witches with Nazis.
Later we see an actor playing Steve McQueen at a party and then an insert that replaces the actual Steve McQueen from video footage with Leonardo DiCaprio. The film is riddled with questions of these sort whether it be performances of Bruce Lee or Sharon Tate.
In this scene towards the beginning of the film, we see Dalton learning his lines for a scene that occurs later on - is a rehearsal a copy? A pre-copy? A proto-copy? When Dalton then completely mangles the scene by forgetting his lines he threatens himself in his caravan of mirrors that if he fucks it up again, he will blow his brains out - to what extent is the ego self that rides in the physical self - a copy, an analogue consciousness or dopple-self?
Conversely the character of Trudy Fraser (with the DiCaprio's character DeCoteau completing the blatant reference to Elisabeth Fraser and her twins) insists that she does not break character on set because when she doesn't she is a little bit better and she is striving for perfection. What is perfection in this relation to the character or, if you want, the spirit?
Is Fraser telling us that the way to achieve perfection is to completely subsume the ego-self in the character/archetype - and isn't this a very similar message to Joker? Fraser's character re-enacts ''the Fallen Daughter'' moment when she is thrown from Dalton's character's lap - when asked later she says she likes being thrown to the ground and throws herself to the ground from time to time just for fun - what does this imply about Malkuth? When Dalton threatens himself in the mirror is this the will to subsume threatening that ego and is this why his final performance is the best acting she has ever seen or is it the ego dopple self threatening the authentic self? More importantly unlike playing a real person where the task of copying is much more simple to what extent is it even possible to perfectly copy a character that only exists on a page and render them to a film? So many layers of possible interpretation await! Can one performance of Joker be more authentic and one Joker less authentic? How do we know? Ask the writer? Ha! To what extent is Rick Dalton an inauthentic character anyway, a mere copy of a copy, a copier's copier? In Once Upon A Time it looks like this authentic self vs inauthentic self is generated by comparison of Cliff Booth (easy going, at peace with himself as himself) and Rick Dalton (fretting over popularity, fragile ego) - in this sense the double seems to be the more genuine. But I might even go further and suggest that DiCaprio's plays the inauthentic authentically and Pitt plays the authentic inauthentically but that might be too far! Either way that is the kind of 4am in the morning high as a kite direction that might have occured!
The influence of Satanism and Pedophilia in Hollywood is a clear concern of the film as well and the time-countered Manson killing serves as a backdrop for this. When Cliff Booth is driving Cat along he turns down her proposition out of not wanting to go to prison for having sex with a minor, but this is from a character who killed his wife and got away with it. Are these references to Roman Polanski? I noticed what might be a Rosemary's Baby reference in a scene where is he explaining to a fellow actor that he only got the part of DeCoteau out of luck because something tragic happened to the actor who was supposed to be playing the part - in RB the actor's satanic pact brings about a similar fortune. Dalton's character, if not Dalton is shown to treat Fraser's character in a very creepy way...
In the beginning of the film Al Pacino's benefactor character corrects Dalton's pronunciation of Schwarz (which means black) and goes on to suggest that if he stays in Hollywood he can only play bad guys and it is his star ego as Dalton, that is being ritually slain on screen not the character. Is Schwarz behind that ''freak accident'' that happened to the other actor in the show he played in with Fraser? He certainly has taken a fancy to Dalton, how far is he willing to go to make things come good for him?
Fraser on the other hand corrects Dalton's pronunciation of DeCoteau to make the reference clear to the audience but also to flag up Dalton's lack of perception and character work. Dalton means ''of the valley'', but the name Dalton is also associated with colour blindness - the obviousness of this Unifying Colour Theory (and everything behind it) which the unsuspecting are blind to? Later on in the movie, George, a blind character literally cannot see how his Hollywood ranch has been taken over by cultist weirdo witches - Booth having to push past hordes of them to see this old producer type - is that a not too subtle metaphor for how it actually is?
Post credits we see Dalton (Tarantino?) standing next to a cardboard cutout of himself, advertising Red Apples cigarettes by talking about that ''although he had to roll (role) them himself in the past, these factory rolled (''roled'') cigarettes are authentic, but then breaking character and complaining that the cutout gives him a double chin. Isn't this a comment on the factory production lines of Hollywood that send down directives like ''use this palette'' for the purposes of ultimate product placement (and occult chicanery) and a plaintive, a-little-too-late-now question for us about authenticity of film? But forget film, to what extent are ourselves now being rolled off a digital production line?
I'm as real as a donut
Tex, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
p.s. There were other kinds of priming at work in that film and you might need this later-later...