I avoid writing reviews of new movies for many reasons, not the least of which is that everyone writes about the same movies at the same time. Would a blogger rather be one of a hundred reviews for the latest blockbuster or the only guy putting down his thoughts on Floods of Fear? I'll take the latter almost every time. Sometimes though I feel it necessary to express my opinion on a new film in a greater capacity than simply joining in the conversation on someone else's blog. This is one of those occasions. But there is another reason I don't do reviews of new movies often: They're so fresh it's hard to pin down what is spur of the moment exuberance and what is thoughtful, measured analysis. And so this will not be a review but an expression of my joy in seeing the cinema itself celebrated so cunningly and masterfully in a recent trip to the megaplex. The film is Inglourious Basterds and it's one dazzling piece of work.
Like I said in the first paragraph though, this isn't a review, this is an expression of joy tempered by a slight bewilderment. There are 214 reviews for Inglourious Basterds on Rotten Tomatoes, 188 positive, 26 negative. I have no idea what movie those other 26 critics saw. One of them is Manohla Dargis. I'm speechless. I've read complaints that parts of the film or perhaps the film as a whole is over the top and this is levelled against it as a criticism. As a fever-pitched celebration of the art of cinema itself I find this criticism as baffling as someone criticizing a musical for containing songs. If that's your criticism then somewhere between the opening and closing credits you missed the point. Severely. I find the sheer and blissful exuberance with which Quentin Tarantino, a non-favorite of mine for full disclosure's sake, shoots his film to be evidence enough that this film is less revenge fantasy and more a study in cinematic technique made whole by a filmmaker who has finally matured. How many filmmakers could mash up as many different aural and visual signatures and come away with a coherent and complete piece. The credits, the music cues, the visual tips of the hat would make for a chaotic mess if the overall style wasn't deeply ingrained in cinematic formalism. The long take and steady tripod-mounted camera compose the glue that holds the mash-ups together. Steady developments of character through dialogue and reaction assure that the formalism is complete and leave audiences too accustomed to the 17 second scene looking at their watches. Poor basterds. A lesser filmmaker would have adopted a quickly edited, hand-held camera style as a part of the mash-up. Tarantino isn't that stupid. He is more than aware for the mash-up to work, for the experiment to succeed, it needs to exist within the confines of standard cinematic continuity. One must subvert the system from the inside out, not haphazardly attack it from outside the lines. Tarantino subverts from within and succeeds mightily.
I know not everyone feels that way and certainly I have found myself as the minority opinion more times than I care to recall so I understand that those gentle souls are as baffled by my reaction as I am by theirs. I don't know what else to say. I just wish, deep in my heart and sincerely, that they could have seen the movie I saw. That's all.
80 comments:
Wonderful. I am so glad we're in agreement on this one (although I quite enjoyed the revenge fantasy element of the film, and don't think it's quite as irrelevant as you do), because not everyone in our circle liked the film, and I find myself avoiding those discussions, because, frankly, I don't know what's going on! I don't know why they're saying the things they're saying, and why some of them seem almost angry at the film.
This is the most exhilerating (I really need to find a new verb) cinematic experience I've had in ages. I was on fire walking out of that theater. I mean no offense when I say this -- truly -- but all the negative reactions to this film seem to be coming from Mars.
Meanwhile the local college theater within walking distance is currently showing...Harry Potter & the Half Blood Prince and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs lovely.
I have been avoiding them too Bill and I already feel kind of sick about the reactions I'm reading. I detect that anger too, and over a film that TRULY CELEBRATES CINEMA!!! I don't think the revenge fantasy is irrelevant so I may have misstated that, I just think the celebration of cinema trumps it, for me at least.
I found it exhilirating too. I don't want to start a fight because those always just make me feel like quitting blogging, but I am baffled by the negative responses I am reading as well. And the amount of venom and condescension they contain.
Krauthammer, please allow me to express my condolences.
I don't want to start a fight, either, so I'll drop that topic in favor of saying, again, for the millionth time, that the tavern scene is nothing less than a remarkable piece of film directing, writing, and acting.
I think you wrote your review wonderfully, however-- I must say, I found the film quite unenjoyable. Yes, there were some masterful scenes, that I don't question-- but on the whole, I was disappointed.
Thanks for your thoughts, Greg. It'd be interesting (if I wasn't, you know, lazy) to do a quantitative analysis of all the negative reviews and count the number of words that directly address the film and the number that talk instead about the man who made it. Sort of like everyone quoting Coppola's megalomania in the initial reviews of "Apocalypse Now," or an early review of "Heaven's Gate" that saw fit to include a paragraph commenting derisively on Michael Cimino's gold-chained attire. (Directors can be assholes? Say it ain't so!) I've read some thoughtful critiques of "Inglourious Basterds," but an overwhelming number seem more eager to quote some random interview where QT says something stupid and shoehorn it into the context of the film. It all amounts to dimestore psychology about a filmmaker and potshots at his "fans" -- the same supposed legions of bloodthirsty arrested adolescents who didn't flock to see "Grindhouse," mind you. Yes, Tarantino has his unsavory side, but there's another side to the guy too. And if his interview ratio of smart-to-stupid is 1-1 at best, then his cinematic ratio is at least 10-1.
Greg: I'm glad to see that you appreciated the movie. I hope you'll join in the conversation at Bill's place, or mine, or both. And I want to second your concern about reviewing freshly minted films, because it's true-- when the first blush of enthusiasm wears off, often the movie can look much different. Time is the best tool for truly evaluating a movie, its effects and its revelance.
That said, what a brilliant movie we are talking about here. And while I don't begrudge anyone their right or duty to dissent from the majority opinion, I too was confused by Manohla Dargis' response. She has been, in the past, one of Tarantino's most vocal defenders. But her insistence that Landa's use of the rat analogy in describing Jews was offensive and indefensible in the context of the movie seems like a willful misunderstanding. She seems to be suggesting that Landa's repeating, and examination of, that analogy, one used by Hitler himself, is being validated by Tarantino, in the mere repeating of it, and also through the revelation of where the Dreyfus family happens to be hiding. Rather than a demonstration of Landa's cleverness as a detective, Dargis seems to believe that Tarantino's dramatic use of the analogy itself is wrongheaded, and she uses that as a club with which to beat the movie over the head for its insensitivity. This is the kind of reaction against the movie that I find befuddling. I would much rather spend my time talking and arguing with people who can express themselves with wit and candor and the ability to hear opinions other than their own about this great film, regardless of whether we all see it in exactly the same way. I hope to hear more of your thoughts on the movie soon.
Greg -
BTW, if I havent' already said so, it's great to have you back on the blog. And I really enjoyed this post. Sometimes you do just have to write out of your initial exuberance and say "to hell" with the measured analysis. I'm glad you enjoyed it, and -as I read this and the conversations between Dennis and Bill - I find myself anxious to re-exeperience "Inglorious Basterds" to see what it yields for me on a repeat viewing. My intial reaction was very mixed.
I'm glad to have finally finished my review of this (my longest ever!) so I can join in with the fascinating discourse on this movie, which is probably more a testament to how dynamic it is than any single piece I've read on it
I wish you'd review new releases more, Greg, I just love this (though I understand why you don't). I understand where a lot of the detractors are coming from, and indeed was bothered by some of the same things they were, but I also found myself shaking my head at everything you said here. It's just so well done, and I'm particularly surprised by the criticism that it's 'boring' --- that is so not the word, my problems with some of the sadism aside. I particularly resent the implication that, somehow, extended dialogue sequences are uncinematic. I concur with Bill, in that the bar sequence is simply incredible (and Bill I'll get to reading the things you've posted on it sometime tomorrow). While I understand where the people who don't like it are coming from, I'm far more in agreement with those who are over the moon for it, if only because at least the admirers are willing to engage with the movie on its own terms instead of an arbitrary set of standards that were brought into the theater. Because Tarantino is one to shatter those notions, for sure.
As a side note, since you say you never really liked him before, did you see Death Proof?
Sorry to be away so long but as soon as I posted I was called away with, uh, teenager/parent business that had to be resolved. So much now to respond to.
First Bill, I agree but would extend that to the opening farmhouse scene and the closing theatre scene and that's a big part of my exhuberance for this film: lengthy scenes have a consistent and slow-building tension that would make Hitchcock envious. Which is why I found none of it boring because it was working functionally to build suspense and I thought it succeeded rather well.
but on the whole, I was disappointed.
Kid, I respect that. My problem is being told I am a fanboy/geek/idiot who has been duped by QT by liking it. That's not reviewing (and you didn't do that I know), it's lashing out.
It'd be interesting (if I wasn't, you know, lazy) to do a quantitative analysis of all the negative reviews and count the number of words that directly address the film and the number that talk instead about the man who made it.
Craig, so far, that's what I'm picking up from the detractors for the most part but not all of them mind you. For instance, not Dargis who I think has interpreted it wrong and as I said in the piece, it kind of leaves me speechless, but she approached from a critical angle.
And as long as I'm on the subject of Dargis I would like to respond to DENNIS by pasting a bit of her review (I seem to be doing this a lot lately but it's my first time using Dargis' words). She writes:
Mr. Waltz’s performance is so very good, so persuasive, seductive and, crucially, so distracting that you can readily move past the moment if you choose. Mr. Tarantino makes it easy to do just that by capping this exegesis with an abrupt sight gag: after asking the farmer if he can smoke, Landa pulls out a pipe so comically large it immediately undercuts his threat, transforming him from a ferocious Jew hunter into a silly man whose flamboyant pipe suggests he suffers from some masculinity issues.
I certainly got the joke but not that interpretation. I took it as a show of bravado, of always having the biggest... whatever there is. In this case, it's a pipe. And it did not for one second detract from the horror that was building in the scene. His ridiculous pipe made it worse, more horrifying because of it gaudiness in the face of impending murder. Next she writes:
The joke fades quickly, as they do in this film, because Landa has already guessed there are Jews hiding where you might expect to find rats, under the floorboards. Mr. Tarantino reveals them in their hiding place, the camera slipping through the floor to show the terrified family members prostrate, their hands over their mouths and eyes wide in fear. It’s a shocking moment partly because this image resonates with horror, but it’s also shocking because it comes cushioned with laughs. Yet the shock dissipates because the Jews are irrelevant here. What matters is how he builds the tension with unnerving quiet and a camera that circles Landa and the farmer like an ever-tightening rope. What matters, to Mr. Tarantino, is the filmmaking.
Again, this demonstrates how vastly different interpretations can be. I did not find the Jews irrelevant regardless of further story developments but most certainly due to further developments they are not irrelevant at all because QT has chosen to show us the family of the Jewish character that he will follow throughout the film. This is for me another moment of bewilderment: How can the family that thrusts the final machinations of fate into place be irrelevant in any way?
But it sounds good and makes QT come off like a soulless technician. That's why I found her review so disappointing. But the worst part is this:
But complaining about tastelessness in a Quentin Tarantino movie is about as pointless as carping about its hyperbolic violence: these are as much a constituent part of his work as the reams of dialogue. This is, after all, a man who has an Oscar for a movie with a monologue about a watch stashed in a rectum.
He has an Oscar for a movie with a monologue about a watch stashed in a rectum. Yes he does. And that monologue is delivered brilliantly by Christopher Walken. And the point is what? That a movie that contains a monologue on that subject cannot be a good movie? What's she even saying there?
And if you haven't read Dennis' prior comment on her confusing interpretation of the rat analogy please do, and thanks Dennis for that thoughtful comment. Now that I've seen the movie I will definitely check in with you and Bill.
PAT, thank you as well for your comment. I'll have to go read your piece on it. It is a movie that may take time to digest fully but I stand by my initial response that it is an exhilirating piece of cinema.
RYAN, thank you as well. I should clear up, I don't dislike QT, he's just never been a favorite. I like all of his movies to a degree but until this one didn't feel any were cinematically mature enough, although Kill Bill is next in line. I didn't find the dialogue here overly clever but instead fascinating as each character, in the tavern scene especially, is NOT saying what they actually want to be saying and so the tension builds as everyone feigns ignorance.
I mean no offense when I say this -- truly -- but all the negative reactions to this film seem to be coming from Mars....
Um... what do you have against Mars????
But, really. I don't think you guys should avoid the negative reviews. Honestly, I've only been reading pieces by the bloggers I usually read, and none of them have come off as angry (maybe I haven't read the right ones yet).
I didn't like the film, and as much as I've talked it out to this point, I think I can simply sum up my reason for NOT to being just the opposite of your feeling of pure exhiliration. I didn't feel that. (I did like Chapters 1 & 5, however).
But how do you really argue or debate feeling exhilirated or not? I guess you can't. It's hard to convince someone of that. I've now seen the movie twice now (the second time after reading Bill's and others thoughts) and I felt the same way I did the first time. I'm indeed feeling the opposite way you guys are: "What are they so excited about??". But I feel pretty settled on Inglourious Basterds that I don't see myself getting upset about anyones differing opinions. I just think it's been fun. If anything, this film has people blogging again.
Just don't come 'round calling me a "Nazi lover" on my blog, because that would be damn mean!
I haven't seen the film and will probably wait for the DVD, but I do want to see it.
I'm actually not a fan of Tarantino's early films (much too derivative and self-conscious for me), but I know the guy loves movies and I really enjoyed Death Proof (loved the way he wrote his female characters in that!). I thought Death Proof was easily his best film so I was hoping he would continue in that direction and mature and grow as a director. I think he's gaining more confidence (for good & bad) as he gets older, which will only help his films.
With that said, I'm not sure why so many critics feel the need to personally bash Tarantino as well as Eli Roth. I have no idea where that kind of venomous hatred is coming from. Both guys obviously LOVE film and they obviously have their roots in exploitation & grindhouse cinema so I assume that really bothers a lot of critics. There are many people who want the respected film cannon to stay in place and they don't like anyone rocking the old boat and shaking things up.
Of course these are the same critics who tend to forget that film genres like "noir" and even directors like Hitchcock were once considered rather trashy and unrespectable.
I could be reaching here, but a lot of the negative criticism seems to be coming from the same people who hated The Dark Knight and seem to foam at the mouth when "comic books" get any kind of critical respect. Maybe you can connect the dots? I'm not feeling all that great (at home with a cold) so my brains a bit fuzzy.
Great writeup Greg, and I totally agree with those who love this film. There are certain criticisms I understand and to some small extent even sympathize with, but I'm really baffled whenever I see someone calling it "boring." I've seen it twice now and was rapt each time.
Kimberly, I think you're right that a lot of critics today routinely underestimate genre films, forgetting that the roots of much of what we today consider "classic" are in genre films. Tarantino is dismissed as superficial, ignoring the deeper content of his films. Like you, I thought Death Proof was his greatest accomplishment thus far, a formalist (and yes, feminist) deconstruction of grindhouse fare. Inglourious Basterds is even better, by far Tarantino's most ambitious and potent film yet.
"I've read complaints that parts of the film or perhaps the film as a whole is over the top and this is levelled against it as a criticism."
It's like Glenn Kenny said of the film's detractors, characterizing their complaints as, "...Quentin Tarantino could be a genuinely great filmmaker if only he could get over his puerile, annoying insistence on making Quentin Tarantino movies."
Ed - Your comments make me want to the film even more now!
Kimberly, I think you're right that a lot of critics today routinely underestimate genre films, forgetting that the roots of much of what we today consider "classic" are in genre films.
My problem with a lot of critics is that when they're threatened by what they don't know or understand they just shut down intellectually.
They want to assume that every great book about cinema has been written and that every great film has been celebrated. They act as if cinema is a long and very dead art form when in fact it is incredibly new, vibrant and still growing and expanding. Frankly, that line of thought bugs the hell out of me!
In some ways I can understand why people might get really turned off by guys like Tarantino & Roth because they're both rather geeky and loud mouthed. I'm sure on a bad day I've hammered Tarantino for being annoying in the past because frankly he can be, but to call Tarantino a Holocaust denier as Rosenbaum has is just so far out of line that I'm not sure how to respond to it.
In a great interview with Eli Roth that I recently read, he explains in detail how Tarantino spent a lot of time with Roth's own family going over many aspects of his film because they were Holocaust survivors and have him a lot of insight. It's just plain cruel to ignore these facts.
Like most critics Rosenbaum has obviously had very little experience with genre/exploitation flicks like The Dirty Dozen, Salon Kitty, the Ilsa She Wolf of the SS films, etc.
Hello everyone, sorry to keep disappearing these last couple of weeks, things just keep taking me away from blogging.
Fox, I am not now nor have I ever been upset with a difference of opinion. It's just that in the comment sections of several posts there has been an air of anger and condescension that I think is uncalled for. As for not finding it exhilirating well, that is indeed a personal call obviously and I don't begrudge you that but I must be plain again, I am a bit confused by it. Because of the way it is written, the way the camera work and editing builds the tension it feels to me, and I say this to try and make my confusion more clear to you while realizing it is a non-equivalent analogy, like someone saying ice is not cold. But anyway, I'm sure it's nothing that can be resolved. I will simply say that I believe it is a masterful film and I do hope one day you see it as I saw it as much as I hope I don't see it as you saw it but only time will give us completion on that front.
Kimberly, interestingly enough I thought of The Dark Knight arguments too. I was not a big fan of that movie but did a post "proving" Citizen Kane was a poorly made film (which of course it isn't) in response to the amount of posts Jim Emerson was devoting to The Dark Knight (which was fine because Jim knew I was going to be doing it anyway and agreed to participate in the discussion that followed). I did it because it felt like people were piling on. I didn't like it that much but couldn't understand why so many HATED it SO MUCH! And felt the need to go on about how it was the worst thing ever. That's how it feels now with IB.
As for Eli Roth can I just go on record right here and now that I thought he was just fine in this movie. In fact, I thought he was pretty good. So really, everyone going off about that just needs to shut the hell up.
Ed, it is the "boring" comment that confuses me more than any other because I believe that way the dialogue is constructed and the way it is filmed that it cannot be boring. That is, you may not like the story - okay, fine - but it is literally constructed in a non-boring way. Again, it's like someone saying ice is not cold. I think, well, it is cold. Maybe you don't like ice, but it's cold, trust me. If you don't find it cold then maybe you have a misunderstanding as to what "cold" is. Back to the movie, maybe audiences don't understand the slow-build anymore. After all, no one does it today and very few (Welles' dynamite discovery scene for instance in Touch of Evil) have done it in the past.
Tony I read Glenn's piece and love that comment. People want QT to direct a rom-com or something I guess and stop making movies that explore the methodologies of cinema. Because we wouldn't want anyone doing that now would we?
maybe audiences don't understand the slow-build anymore.
That may very well be true, but actually most of the "boring" comments seem to be coming not from audiences as a whole but from critics, who you'd expect to be more used to displaying patience for narrative development. Both audiences I've seen this with now seemed hugely appreciative of the film, giving it a big round of applause after that gutsy final line, as though agreeing with Pitt.
And for the record, my one big complaint about the film is indeed Eli Roth, who gives a pretty lousy performance by any standard I can see. I know very little about the guy, haven't seen any of his movies, and have only seen his acting previously in a forgettable role in Death Proof. But every time he had a line to say here I was gritting my teeth. He doesn't seem like much of an actor, and the film is full of so many great performances in so many different veins -- some cartoony and outrageous, some realistic and emotional, some mingling the two -- that he does stand out as the one cast member who seems really out of his depth.
I should add, I got a kick out of him in the Italian scene. But then, I got a kick out of everything in that scene. Especially the way Brad Pitt drawls "arreev-a-der-chee."
But with Roth he is given too little to do for it to be a performance of note one way or the other. I can't say his performance is bad any more than I can say the guy in the back of the cab in Airplane is bad. For what he does I think he's fine but the criticisms you here would lead you to believe he was a major supporting player which he isn't.
Also, I found the audience appreciative as well. I have no idea about some of the critics, except that perhaps many fell into reviewing because the paper needed a reviewer. I don't know because when I saw it, like you, I was rapt.
Bon - jor - no!
The criticisms you "hear" not "here." Ouch.
Ed, it is the "boring" comment that confuses me more than any other because I believe that way the dialogue is constructed and the way it is filmed that it cannot be boring. That is, you may not like the story - okay, fine - but it is literally constructed in a non-boring way. Again, it's like someone saying ice is not cold. I think, well, it is cold. Maybe you don't like ice, but it's cold, trust me. If you don't find it cold then maybe you have a misunderstanding as to what "cold" is."...
Greg-
But aren't those "ice" comments a bit condescending themselves? I understand a passion for someone to argue in IB's favor, but you seem to be arguing for abosultes in emotional reactions to a film, and I don't think that exists.
I found moments of IB boring, and the reasons for that probably just means my preferences or sensibities differ, and not that I didn't understand the constructs of the film.
For example, I found the humor in Inglourious Basterds to be weak (Pitt's perfomance, especially, I found tedious), the tavern scene to be longwinded, and the Hugo Stiglitz mini-segment to be a desperate stab at extravagance instead of a kind of courageous unconventional filmmaking that others have labeled it as.
Obviously, others disagree, but to argue that a film is contructed in a way where it just "cannot" be seen as boring is saying that such a thing is definable (as ice is), and I don't think that's possible with art/entertainment.
Fox, I don't disagree with you. In my comment to you I originally wrote and should have continued to write that it was a non-equivalent analogy. That is, I know it doesn't work as an absolute but I was trying to express that that's how I feel when I hear that it's boring. But of course, you and others can find it so, I just use the ice analogy to put my confusion into words. And poorly so it would seem.
By the way, I found Pitt to be a hoot. So I guess we disagree there too... ice hater.
That may very well be true, but actually most of the "boring" comments seem to be coming not from audiences as a whole but from critics, who you'd expect to be more used to displaying patience for narrative development....
Or couldn't it just be that critics didn't like the narrative development?
The "impatience" suggestion seems to imply that the construction of IB is a challenging or difficult one for viewers that didn't respond positively to it, while it's really the same style that QT has often run with (see Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill). I thought IB was easy to digest, it just left a bitter aftertaste.
Since I really haven't decided yet if I liked it or not, and may not be able to really decide that for years, I will only say that I don't get all the arguments against Eli Roth's performance. It's not Brando, but he was acceptable. He's a much better actor than Quentin Tarantino.
"ice hater"...
FANBOY!
He's a much better actor than Quentin Tarantino....
I don't know, he let his head get scalped pretty good!
Also... thanks for making me laugh with that punchline, Larry.
Fox, I'll leave it to Ed to discuss that since it was his comment but certainly many simply may not have liked the build-up as you suggest. This does seem like a movie discussion that will be slow to evolve as those who love it discuss it together and those who dislike it will discuss it together with little changing of minds. I think that may be because of what you're saying Fox: if we all understand what QT was trying to do we either walk away liking it or not. I liked it, hell, I loved it.
I will only say that I don't get all the arguments against Eli Roth's performance.
See, Larry's got my back.
This does seem like a movie discussion that will be slow to evolve as those who love it discuss it together and those who dislike it will discuss it together with little changing of minds....
Indeed. It does seem a bit odd that likers/non-likers are sort of huddling together, doesn't it? I wonder why that seems to be the case with this film specifically.
Come on people, this ain't the healthcare debate!!!
Actually, I have to go again but I wish Ed would write it up at Only the Cinema (Ed if you have I completely missed it somehow). Also, even though she primarily concentrates on the horror genre, Tenebrous Kate nicely encapsulates my feelings on the film and I recommend giving her post a look. Finally, Bill and Dennis' conversation will, I believe, provide the best understanding of the film that a liker/non-liker is likely to get.
Thanks Fox on the spam update. I shall delete all associated links.
I will grant the pro-Roth contingent: he is, indeed, a better actor than Tarantino.
Fox, I think Inglourious Basterds *is* challenging and difficult and that some people (not necessarily you) are not getting all it has to offer. But that has little to do with boredom, which to me implies a "less talk, more action" kind of criticism.
I'm still trying to avoid talking too much about this film until the big Tarantino conversation is published next week, but somehow I keep getting sucked in; there's just so much being written about this film and it's been continually on my mind since last weekend.
Oh and Greg I've probably mentioned it before (and hinted at it just above) but I'm not doing a writeup at Only the Cinema because Jason Bellamy and I have just wrapped up a big conversation about Tarantino that will be published at the House Next Door next week, probably in two parts: the first a career overview up to Grindhouse, the second a long back-and-forth about Inglourious Basterds.
Ed, I definitely look forward to reading that, thanks.
I'm still trying to avoid talking too much about this film until the big Tarantino conversation is published next week, but somehow I keep getting sucked in; there's just so much being written about this film and it's been continually on my mind since last weekend....
Yeah, you and Jason sure took on quite a vow of celibacy (you aren't do so well in your case) when deciding to hold of on posts. I admire y'all, but don't know how you could wait. Each time I clike on OTS, I expect your IB review to be up.
Boy, I'm sorry I've been missing this. I've been busy at work, and "composing" (my writing really is kind of musical, when you think about it) my response to Dennis.
But Greg, I agree with you about Roth. For what he had to do, he was swell, and I say so in my reply to Dennis. So now it's going to look like I ripped you off. Son of a...!
Also, "Joy Reed" is spam.
Ed-
And just to be clear...
And I don't deny that IBs content can offer a challenge as far as interpreting or finding meaning in, but as far as pure story structure, I think it's a pretty accessible film.
In fact, I remember being bummed that QT felt the need to flashback the "Shoshanna fleeing the farm" scene, as to remind us who she was and what her relationship with Landa is.
I've been busy at work, and "composing" (my writing really is kind of musical, when you think about it) my response to Dennis....
You should change your name to "Wolfgang Amadeus Bill".
Yeah, I'm doing badly with this particular "vow." It's hard to hold off when every site on the internet seemingly has something up and it's a film that I'm so enthused about. But I've managed to refrain from going into too much substance, at least, I hope.
It's hard to hold off when every site on the internet seemingly has something up and it's a film that I'm so enthused about....
Even Cake Wrecks is getting-it-on over IB! (not really).
I think something must be deeply wrong with me because I genuinely like Eli Roth. I should probably refrain from commenting because I still get hate mail from people who are mad at me for defending Hostel 2, but after years of verbal abuse I guess Roth has become a sort of sore spot with me.
There's probably only a handful of people in the world who would agree with me, but I find him incredibly likable and funny. I love his enthusiasm & passion for movies (great example in this video) and I think he comes across as easy going in the interviews I've seen. Sometimes he's a little defensive and awkward, but if I was Roth I'd be a little defensive myself. He's also really accessible at his Myspace page, etc.
Anyway, I digress... call me crazy, but I just don't understand all the hatred. Or maybe I just find funny Jewish guys who like Carl Theodor Dreyer & Lucio Fulci's films kinda hot and interesting? Who knows...
Kimberly, like I said (and Larry and Bill) Roth is just fine in the movie. I know some disagree but I didn't see the problem. And even Ed liked him in the Italian scene which is very funny indeed.
And I thought Hostel 2 was better than the first. If you recall, I used scenes from it in both my October trailer for last year and my final October montage (the scene in question is the one with Heather Mattarazzo). I know those movies aren't everyone's cup of tea but I don't think anyone can deny (although I'm sure they do) that Roth has a very good eye.
I read what you all said, but I was just commenting about the general dislike of Roth that I see everywhere. Critics in particular seem to loath him. Even some of the folks who found him tolerable in IB sound like their apologizing for it.
But I digress! I'm sure we've discussed Roth before, Greg. He's a polarizing figure and I just don't get it. Now as for Rob Zombie... I can totally understand the hatred for that guy!
I've not yet seen Zombie's Halloween. I just can't bring myself to do it out of respect for Carpenter and for whatever reason the trailer for the new one just makes me mad.
Greg-
Spot on. I thought BASTERDS was an exuberant masterwork by someone that has obviously matured into a real filmmaker.
I also agree with you on the camera work. The restraint he shows is truly what works. Especially in the bar scene, with one of the great payoffs in modern film history.
Right away, the music in the beginning got me in the mood for the film I was about to see. Then, the conversation between Landa and the farmer started. I was totally with it, but as soon as those static shots stopped and he cut to that 180 degree dolly that flips the eye line and makes the whole mood of the talk flip on a dime, I got chills up and down my spine. What a great film.
Joseph, your description of the beginning is a great way to explain it. QT plays with different conventions all within a formalist framework that reassures the viewer to the extent that an aural or visual clue snaps the viewer to attention when things suddenly shift gears. When I heard that opening music I was expecting the opening scene to be the now famous Brad Pitt speech to his men and instead we get a farmhouse and an incredible slow building of tension that, at the moment you describe, switches to horror. I agree, it's a great movie.
Formalist is something you don't hear attributed to QT very often but it's very true. While he pushes his characters in non-conventional directions, his film grammar is definitely rooted in formalism...
Why you avoid it.. i think its a fantastic review..
Yeah, Greg. Why you avoid it?
It's just how I roll.
Trying to better formulate my thoughts and decided I'd share them. Apologies if I'm taking up valuable comment space since I haven't even seen the film in question yet.
I think what might really be bothering a lot of critics about Tarantino (I say "starting" because many of the same critics who are lambasting him now and IB put Tarantino on a pedestal in the '90s) is that they've finally realized that he's basically just making modern "exploitation" films or "trash." In the '90s most of the critical praise I read about his work was written by people who had no knowledge of Hong Kong or Japanese cinema (outside of Ozu and Kurosawa). They had no idea what "giallo" films were and they didn't watch American slasher flicks. They praised Tarantino for his "originality" years ago, but now that his influences have become plainly obvious (grindhouse cinema is officially mainstream now thanks to guys like Tarantino) it almost feels like they're rejecting him.
Personally I'm bothered by words like "trash" and "exploitation" because I think they're often misused and dismisses of truly great filmmaking by directors like Jess Franco, Lucio Fulci, Mario Bava, Yasuharu Hasebe, etc. (just to name a few). These are directors that Tarantino has studied and obviously admires and I admire them as well. Some of these directors were obviously interested in expressing political ideas, etc. but many of them just wanted to make an entertaining popcorn movie. For better or worse, I think Tarantino probably falls into the later category.
I'm not sure why he was elevated so early in his career and all the attention he gets is still sort of startling to me, but he sure knows how to sell his films!
And I do think (well, I hope...) that he's getting wiser as he gets older and understanding what his strengths are as a filmmaker. As I mentioned above, I was really impressed with the way he wrote his female characters in Death Proof. As Ed said, it's an extremely feminist take on grindhouse films even if that wasn't completely intentional on Tarantino's part. And the main reason I want to see IB is because it has a female protagonist and her revenge story sounds interesting to me (I have a serious "thing" for female revenge film such as the Female Scorpion movies that Tarantino borrowed from to make his Kill Bill flicks). I also like movies like The Dirty Dozen so I'll probably enjoy the "Bastereds" element of IB but I'm much more interested in Shoshanna's story.
Anyway, back to my point...
I think critics want Tarantino to be a moralizing director now (maybe in the same vein as Eastwood?) and I'm not sure that he's ever been interested in making films with some kind of clear moral vision. He doesn't seem all that interested in taking a stand on anything. I think he's more interested in offering his audience an "experience" and in the darkness of a movie theater a revenge fantasy (let me stress that word = FANTASY) can be a very powerful and cathartic experience for the audience. And I personally think that art, films, books, etc. can offer people an "experience" that allows them to express their emotions in a very healthy way.
Kimberly, for someone who hasn't seen it I'd say that's a brilliant analysis of the situation. I think IB shows a great maturation of QT as a director but what irks so many, as Glen Kenny was quoted as saying earlier in this thread, he still makes QT movies. It's like they want him to start making Ron Howard movies.
But I also find an emotional element rising to the surface with his movies and in this one the story of Shoshanna had me emotionally involved as well. I really hope you get to see it soon.
Brava, Kimberly! "I think critics want Tarantino to be a moralizing director... and I'm not sure that he's ever been interested in making films with some kind of clear moral vision. He doesn't seem all that interested in taking a stand on anything. I think he's more interested in offering his audience an "experience"..."
That's it exactly, and (as I've been writing this week) I've found it amusing how many critics have tried to read moral motivations into a film that (to use Tarantino's own phrase) is designed to "jerk off" an audience one way and then another. Sure, you can read moral implications into that, but I don't think the movie really operates very well on such a level. If that were really QT's intention, he would have filmed so many scenes quite differently. (I mentioned a counter-example from "Carrie," one of QT's favorite films and a pronounced influence on "IB"'s fiery finish, at Dennis's.)
Re: the rat analogy. I hope to see the film a second time this weekend, but I thought Landa's "one man's rat is another man's squirrel" soliloquy was part of his flamboyant, performance-oriented way of telling the farmer that he knew he was hiding the Jewish family on his property. (The movie, I think, is primarily about acting and mythmaking -- including what it means to be "Quentin Tarantino.")
I hope to see the film a second time this weekend, but I thought Landa's "one man's rat is another man's squirrel" soliloquy was part of his flamboyant, performance-oriented way of telling the farmer that he knew he was hiding the Jewish family on his property.
Exactly! Since they were under the floorboards and Landa doesn't like to just walk into a room and say "here they are" he strings the farmer along and then slowly and dramatically reveals that he is on to him. He does this throughout. When he asks for Bridget's foot he already knows her involvement but by playing out a scene from Cinderella he gets to relish in the anxiety coarsing through her body. He's a sick bastard, I mean, basterd.
Jim, I hope you checked out the same set of posts from Dennis' at Bill's place to see the debate over diminishing the Holocaust fueled by the original statement by Jonathan Rosenbaum. It's been a great discussion across the web so far and I look forward to reading as much as I can before seeing it again.
The debate has been interesting up to now. I predict, however, that Christopher Hitchens will write a nasty takedown of the movie for Slate, where he will inform the rest of us that WWII didn't actually end that way.
It didn't?
Wait, what is WWII anyway?
Some skirmish in New Zealand... I think.
Greg - I'm glad my observations aren't completely off base. Since I've been following the critical reaction to IB online I've been pretty amazed by the negative criticism and outrage over the film that I've come across. So much of it seems like personal attacks that don't have much to do with the film and I find that kind of criticism just plain toxic.
On a side note, another thing that has gotten me interested in Tarantino's more recent films is his direction. I think the way he positioned his camera and shot a lot of the scenes in Death Proof was really interesting. I might be in the minority, but I think he's gotten better at shooting action scenes in recent years.
Jim - I'm looking forward to catching up with your blog and your observations about the film!
There does seem to be a need by many critics to make Tarantino into something that he never really was to begin with. Instead of comparing His latest film to movies like The Dirty Dozen or the 1978 Italian WW2 film The Inglorious Bastards (spelled correctly!) they're trying to compare it with things like Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. Tarantino obviously has a lot more in common with directors like Enzo G. Castellari instead of Spielberg so it all seems really strange to me.
So much of it seems like personal attacks that don't have much to do with the film and I find that kind of criticism just plain toxic.
Agreed. I try to just tune that stuff out.
Instead of comparing His latest film to movies like The Dirty Dozen or the 1978 Italian WW2 film The Inglorious Bastards (spelled correctly!) they're trying to compare it with things like Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List...
Yep. The fact that Schindler's List, or any film like it, is in this conversation at all is utterly baffling to me.
I think the Schindler's List comparison is off base, but not the Saving Private Ryan so much. The point of comparison, for me, would be that both Spielberg and Tarantino were making war movies based on the war movies they saw as a child. The difference, and this is a big difference, is that Spielberg is dishonest about his intentions, pretending that he learned about war from life instead of movies, while Tarantino wears them on his sleeve.
The only reason I've compared it to Schindler's List is because if we're going to say that the film distorts history and the Holocaust, we could level the same charges at SL. Don't forget that, when SL came out, many critics cited it as "Spielberg taking revenge". I think that notion is way off, but it's still interesting how that can be a virtue in Spielberg's case, and a weakness for Tarantino.
See! I have unkind words for Spielberg every once in a while.
Spielberg is dishonest about his intentions...
How can you be so sure? His dad was a veteran, you know.
But Saving Private Ryan is every bit as inspired by other movies as IB is; only the movies that are its lifeblood are of a different variety. Saving Private Ryan is more in the fashion of big, sweeping historical epics like The Longest Day, where-as IB is more derived from the "men on a mission" (to use Tarantino's phrase) type of war movies.
But Spielberg pretends his movie is based on life, he pretends to be being contemplative about violence while really just relishing in the blood, gun fire, and explosions. I don't think like how it's half action movie, half waxing-poetic about the moral ambiguities of war. It strikes me as disingenuous. At the very least, Tarantino is much more honest about where he's coming from.
But yeah, I know the whole "Schindler's List is for my mom, Saving Private Ryan for my dad" line, and I think that's part of what rubs me the wrong way about those movies. I appreciate his movies more when he makes them for himself, instead of some bizarre sense of obligation.
You know what's been totally ignored in the conversation about Inglourious Basterds? The new sidebar banner for Toerifc September for if.....
Greg, me too am glad you back, big guy.
Though I need to point out -- as I'm sure you're aware -- that I'm one of those who was looking at my watch during parts (only parts) of this film. And I'm certainly not one of those "too accustomed to the 17 second scene", being a fan of Bela Tarr and Hou Hsiao Hsien.
And what does it mean to say that folks who disagree with you haven't seen the same movie? Do you have some magic goggles or something, that allow you to see the "true nature" of a movie, or do you think we wandered into a different theater by accident? Of course I saw the same movie, I just simply disagree.
I swear: I've never seen a more fervent backlash from lovers of a film onto those who disagree since, well, "The Dark Knight." This is a well reviewed movie. As of this morning it's got an 89% tomatometer reading. Most people agree with y'all. Get over it. Be happy!
Yur frind,
Rick
Rick, apparently we do disagree but in different areas. The backlash I have encountered is from those who don't like it and seem determined to run down anyone who does like it. You know, despite the myriad of thoughtful and intelligent analysis we're all just fanboys who've been duped by QT. That's what I'm seeing personally and it smells desperate. And I have no magic goggles, I just wish anyone who doesn't like it enjoyed it as much as I did just as you would wish that for anyone not loving a movie you did, that's all.
Greg, I take your point. And for the record, I've never called any Tarantino fan a fan-boy. I myself, as I said in my own piece, loved "Pulp Fiction" and (to a lesser extent) the "Kill Bill" movies.
And I do think there is some backlash going on: this movie has been hyped and waited and panted-for for a long time, and QT doesn't make many movies, so it's been pumped up in expectation, so I think there are some who automatically go in wanting to be haters.
People on both sides of this film have attacked the other side rather than (or at the same time as) critiquing the film. That's too bad.
Rick, I agree that the film, not the man, should be getting critiques. With directors whose personalities precede them that is often the case and you're right, QT doesn't make many movies so there is definitely an anticipation level that goes with the package.
Greg,
This is like Bill r. said... wonderful.
I've seen Basterds twice and both times enjoyed myself immensely. And I think that's the key. Some movies you enjoy. And other movies you find yourself enjoying them. Does that make sense? And no there's not some kind of self-gratification joke in there. Or maybe there is.
I posted a piece today about my thoughts on Basterds. And to your point about knowingly tipping the hat, I found myself smiling the second the credits rolled in anticipation of something great. And it was delivered.
Glad you liked it.
Pat, I really did. I found it to be the best experience I've had with a new movie in a long time and I'm going to go read your thoughts on it now.
I would have to say that IB is his best film since Pulp Fiction. I only have one problem with it, the scene with the baseball bat. Such over the top bravado over beating a defenseless man to death, really?
The juxtaposition of the sniper movie being cheered by the Nazis with our hopes for their deaths struck me as quite a statement on movie violence to be coming from Mr. Tarentino. Perhaps I am overrating him?
It was very nice to see that he has his dialogue fetish under control after his bender in Death Proof.
Post a Comment