JAMIE FOXX IS DJANGO - Page 2

What I wouldn't give to have the Coen's give a one over on a Tarantino script and direct it.

The Coens doing a pass on a Tarantino script and then directing it would likely result in something that just feels an awful lot like a Coen brothers movie.  We already get those.  Personally I like having both.

They both do a lot of movies influenced by other movies (albeit in different ways), they both do a lot of work in the crime genre, and they both utilize black comedy very well.  But at their thematic core I found them quite different filmmakers.

On a different note, it's so funny how with every new project people line up to dismiss Quentin as having lost what once made him great.  Yet he continues to turn out work that is both instantly recognizable as his own, and find new directions to explore within his niche.  Really I can't think of another modern filmmaker whose progression from one movie to the next flows so well.  You can find interesting ways to compare and contrast each one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker 

What I wouldn't give to have the Coen's give a one over on a Tarantino script and direct it.

That's like saying someone should give one of Woody Allen's scripts a one over. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

Just read about a quarter of the script, and while I obviously won't spoil anything, Foxx strikes me as WAY better suited to this than Smith. It'll be the role of his career. Actually the whole movie feels a lot like a companion piece to Basterds in its revisionist history tale of suffering minority groups obtaining revenge while aided by an eloquent white badass.

 

And to be honest, I'm getting sick of Tarantino's repetitiveness in story, character, theme, dialogue etc. Of course his dialogue flows excellently and has great rhythm, but the over-sophistication of it always struck me as so artificial. I suppose that's the appeal, but when compared to dialogue from the Coens, for example, it really pales since the Coens write character-specific dialogue that really evinces the individual qualities of those characters, and is extremely evocative of time and place in a way Tarantino can't muster in Basterds or, from what I've read, in Django (although maybe that's not his objective). Every character in a Tarantino movie, especially the (even vaguely) villainous ones, all have this exceedingly polite and articulate way of speaking that simply fails to impress me anymore, since seriously, anybody can write eloquent dialogue. Fucking PR reps for corporate businesspeople can write that shit. It takes a genuine artist to come up with a distinctive voice for each character, and that's something that Tarantino seems to be losing interest in since Jackie Brown -- not to mention, of course, that this will be his fourth revenge movie in a row (fifth if you count Kill Bill as two films). Originality just doesn't rank high on his list of priorities, apparently.

 

I view Tarantino sheerly as an entertainer these days who couldn't nail a theme or character arc (beyond the typical revenge story) if he wanted to. I would say his literary equivalent is someone like Stephen King (although King has at least mastered basic grammar). While there's nothing wrong with that (and he's at least conscious of it, since one of his movies is named Pulp Fiction after all), I'm having a hard time seeing him as a real artist. Anyway, sorry about the rant. 

Yeah Aldo the Apache, Stiglitz, Hicox and Landa ALL had the same way of speaking. 

Aldo, Hicox, and Landa almost certainly did, and Stiglitz didn't really talk at all so I'll give you that one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

Aldo, Hicox, and Landa almost certainly did, and Stiglitz didn't really talk at all so I'll give you that one.

How can you say Aldo and Landa had the same voice? I watched the movie again the other week. Nothing about the way they spoke struck me really struck me as similar. 

     Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

Aldo, Hicox, and Landa almost certainly did, and Stiglitz didn't really talk at all so I'll give you that one.

This is...an interesting take.
 

Well it's kind of a bad example, since they're probably more different than other characters you could use to prove my point. Hicox and Landa are pretty damn similar, as are Hicox and Calvin Candie, and Landa and Dr. Schultz, and Calvin Candie and Bill, and Bill and Jules. They're all spins on the same Tarantino mold, which is the eloquent badass who hides his violent competence under a veneer of good manners. Tarantino's amazing facility for casting just tends to lend each character unique personalities that aren't there on the page. 

Still, though -- Aldo fits into that mold as well, and is pretty damn eloquent for an uneducated hillbilly from the backwoods, to such an extent that he loses integrity as a character and becomes a cartoon. He just uses his verbal facility in a more rousing and confrontational way than Landa. And Django starts out in the new script as uneducated and inarticulate, but guess what he is by the end? Another spin on that same character. So it goes.

When dialogue has a trademark style it has a tendency to sound a particular way.  On the one hand you have Mamet and Pinter, on the other you have Whedon.  When it's servicing something smart, it's a style.  When it's servicing something dull, it's a crutch.  All of Tarantino's movies have recognizable themes/characters/subject matter/dialogue, but they also have different ambitions within the familiar stuff.  I am sure there were people who thought Hitch made the same movie over and over again, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trav McGee 


Ejiofor's more than an adequate actor, however, and his role in REDBELT is where most folks are (well, I am) getting the idea of him playing a taciturn, slow-burning ass-kicker here, seeing as we've seen him do it extremely well once already.

Not just once. Remember "Serenity"? I agree a bit with that rant about Tarantino. He seems to be repeating himself a bit. His movies are still always entertaining (at least parts of them), but I'd like to see him expand his horizons a bit. I hear his next project after "Django Unchained" will be a Kill Bill sequel (maybe even two) and as much as I love "Kill Bill, Vol. 2", I'll be really disappointed if that's what he ends up doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

When dialogue has a trademark style it has a tendency to sound a particular way.  On the one hand you have Mamet and Pinter, on the other you have Whedon.  When it's servicing something smart, it's a style.  When it's servicing something dull, it's a crutch.  All of Tarantino's movies have recognizable themes/characters/subject matter/dialogue, but they also have different ambitions within the familiar stuff.  I am sure there were people who thought Hitch made the same movie over and over again, too.

Well I would argue that with Tarantino it is usually pretty self-serving rather than being beholden to anything smart, and I would describe it precisely as a crutch if I had found that word for it. What is the "smart" end-goal of any one of Tarantino's films? I would actually genuinely like to hear an argument for that, since I've wondered about it a lot since Basterds came out.

And please, don't say redemption for Pulp Fiction, because making all your villainous characters die at the end does not make your movie a redemption story.

Well maybe you can argue it, but right now you're just saying it.  As for me, I've written posts in threads about the appropriate films.  If you really want to see what I have to say about Tarantino's films I am sure you can find them.  I don't see why the onus is on me to argue what is essentially the critical consensus.  There are plenty of reviews by people more cinema savvy than me that go into what's smart and ambitious in Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and Inglourious Basterds.

It strikes me as disingenuous to say  "What is the "smart" end-goal of any one of Tarantino's films? I would actually genuinely like to hear an argument for that"... unless you just never read film criticism.  There's plenty of support out there for his value and standing as an artist.

Well that's a pretty easy way to deflect having a discussion about an artist's value, I guess. The burden of proof is indeed mine, but I've argued my point to a logical extent above and I haven't really gotten any legitimate reply. By your logic, I should just write my posts and then refer back to old criticism of Tarantino for counter-arguments. You're the one that made the claim in this thread that Tarantino's movies have strong thematic value and always service something smart -- I dunno how you can just say "well, it's true because all the critics say it is" and claim that as an adequate way to back up your argument.

The critical consensus can't always be trusted. That should go without saying.

I'm not deflecting the discussion, I just don't have time to write a long reply at this point, so I invited you to read some of the long discussions the CHUD community has already had about all of these films.

I do find it funny that you're positioning yourself as the guy who wants to have the discussion, when you haven't made anything near a persuasive argument as to why the critical consensus is incorrect.

Vengeance has always been a theme in Tarantino's work.  It might be more in the forefront on his recent films, but it is present in virtually all of his works.

- Keitel was itching for a reason to smoke Michael Madsen in Reservoir Dogs.

- In Pulp Fiction, Willis goes samurai on the thugs that take him hostage, revenging both himself and his former enemy in the process.

- Slater goes "Charlie Bronson" on Gary Oldman in True Romance.

- Harrelson & Lewis repay Rodney Dangerfield for all the "kindness" he showed his family through the years.

Hell, Jackie Brown itself is a revenge tale of sorts.  The whole plot of the film really revolves around Pam Grier robbing Sam Jackson because of all the trouble he has caused in her life.  The only QT projects I can really think of that don't have some sort of a revenge theme are From Dusk Till Dawn and his Four Rooms segment.  The latter completely lacks the theme.  As for FDTD, while Clooney is pissed that his brother has been killed he seems far more concerned with his own survival and making it to El Rey with his money..............than with avenging his brother's death.

Like I said, revenge is apart of the Tarantino M.O. and I suspect it always will be to some degree.  Also, Django Unchained is FAR less revisionist than Basterds.  It's pretty much just a straight-up spaghetti western that happens to heavily involve slavery in the American south.  And like most spaghetti westerns, it heavily involves vengeance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi 

Not just once. Remember "Serenity"? I agree a bit with that rant about Tarantino. He seems to be repeating himself a bit. His movies are still always entertaining (at least parts of them), but I'd like to see him expand his horizons a bit. I hear his next project after "Django Unchained" will be a Kill Bill sequel (maybe even two) and as much as I love "Kill Bill, Vol. 2", I'll be really disappointed if that's what he ends up doing.

He keeps reiterating that he wants to do at least one sequel to Kill Bill (if not two more volumes) and that he would definitely not make it before ten years had passed since the first two volumes.  As to whether or not Kill Bill: Volume Three (and four?) ends up as his next project is anyone's guess.  Hell, until recently Django Unchained was running neck and neck with a Prohibition-era gangster script that he has also written.  If you look back to his comments in interviews mid-last year, he had no idea which one he would make first.  With Quentin, it's always hard to peg his next move.  He could do the gangster flick next.  He could do the Kill Bill follow-up.  He could set aside both and do something entirely different.  Hard to say really.

I will say that I believe he intends to do both the gangster piece and the Kill Bill sequel(s).  He's talked up other potential projects over the years, but only ever really seemed serious about Basterds, his spaghetti western (Django Unchained), his gangster epic, and another go with The Bride.  Quentin has already checked two of those off his list.  The final two are inevitable at some point on down the line.

But just because his movies involve a lot of vengeance doesn't mean that's their theme, or that it's even an artistically competent one. Themes usually have to take a solid position on an issue in order to have any merit, i.e. the theme of Raging Bull is (or can be said to be) that the pursuit of masculinity is inherently violent. The theme isn't just "masculinity." Or in Munich -- vengeance begets more vengeance, leaving us with a moral quagmire. The essence of Tarantino films, the theme I guess, is that vengeance is really badass and that evil people deserve to die. Which I would argue is simply not complex enough to warrant the critical accolades Tarantino has received.

Movies are not necessarily defined by their thematics, but I think you have to be able to analyze a movie in order for it to have much value, and that discussion has to be in some way revealing in and of itself. Tarantino's films don't yield much discussion and the discussion that is to be had ("did Landa know that it was Shoshanna in the scene with the creme???") isn't of an academic nature.

It feels like the knives have been out for Tarantino for the better part of a decade. I still remember how happy people were that Death Proof turned out to be something of a misstep, I love the film but it's got some real vocal detractors. Essentially the fandango has always been that Tarantio is coming off a slump (Kill Bill vol.1 lacked soul, Kill Bill vol.2 wasn't action packed, Death Proof was too chatty) and for a few months after release the newest film is viewed as a return to form.

Tarantino has a very specific sort of voice and it means that it's easy to identify his weaknesses. Wes Anderson has exactly the same problem. What I find hilarious is people trying to argue that the loquacious, mannered, dialogue in Coen Bros. movies is somehow more naturalistic than QT. Both the Coens and the QT have carved out their careers with idiosyncratic character voices.

Also if you're genuinely trying to argue that there is NO academic discussion to be had from QT's films then you're a cunt. An articulate cunt, but a cunt. His films are smart and literate and you only have to go to the respective post-release threads to see people having nuanced, academic, discussions about the work. Even minor works like Death Proof have potentially academic qualities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike Marshall 

It feels like the knives have been out for Tarantino for the better part of a decade. I still remember how happy people were that Death Proof turned out to be something of a misstep, I love the film but it's got some real vocal detractors. Essentially the fandango has always been that Tarantio is coming off a slump (Kill Bill vol.1 lacked soul, Kill Bill vol.2 wasn't action packed, Death Proof was too chatty) and for a few months after release the newest film is viewed as a return to form.

 

Tarantino has a very specific sort of voice and it means that it's easy to identify his weaknesses. Wes Anderson has exactly the same problem. What I find hilarious is people trying to argue that the loquacious, mannered, dialogue in Coen Bros. movies is somehow more naturalistic than QT. Both the Coens and the QT have carved out their careers with idiosyncratic character voices.

 

Also if you're genuinely trying to argue that there is NO academic discussion to be had from QT's films then you're a cunt. An articulate cunt, but a cunt. His films are smart and literate and you only have to go to the respective post-release threads to see people having nuanced, academic, discussions about the work. Even minor works like Death Proof have potentially academic qualities.

It kind of feels like the people who've wanted Pixar to fail and are now rejoicing at the tepid reviews of Cars 2. This attitude baffles me (why would you WANT artists to fail, unless they suck?), as does Mulder's claim that there's nothing intellectual about Tarantino's films. Yes, he's a superb entertainer, but he's surprisingly thoughtful as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike Marshall 

Also if you're genuinely trying to argue that there is NO academic discussion to be had from QT's films then you're a cunt. An articulate cunt, but a cunt. His films are smart and literate and you only have to go to the respective post-release threads to see people having nuanced, academic, discussions about the work. Even minor works like Death Proof have potentially academic qualities.

There is some discussion to be had, but not a lot. I dunno. Once again I'm referred back to already-existing criticism, rather than shown any real argument for Tarantino's validity as an artist. Obviously this is just a meager pre-release thread for Django, but it would be nice just to have ONE little counter-post that actually provides solid evidence that Tarantino is a real artist. Maybe I could get one post about a real genuine theme in his movies from you guys? Or maybe something about a really great and original character arc? These are easy things to say and comment about, but instead of saying them even briefly you're all just saying "well there's a ton of discussion already, go look at that shit." And that's not proving anything.

And yeah, Wes Anderson does suffer from the same central issue as Tarantino. Every character in his movies are the same, and they obscure that issue with flashy eye-catching aesthetics rather than stretching themselves.

That's just not correct.  There are plenty of movies that examine things that have no easy answers.  That just present something as it is and leave it up to the viewer to decide.

I got the exact opposite message from Inglourious Basterds.  In fact, in some ways its idea of vengeance is similar to Munich's.  But instead of making the futility of revenge the text, he made a rousing and violent war picture that rubbed our noses in the violence of the Basterds, and forced attentive audience members to question why it was so exciting to watch people get beaten with baseball bats, gunned down, and burned alive.  Yes, they were Nazis, but Tarantino was able to imbue many of the "grunt" soldiers with humanity.  And the Basterds tactics were supposed to recall terrorism.

There was also the additional element, operating on a different level, that highlighted the artificiality of the experience.  By rewriting history so blatantly he was expressing the power of cinema to serve as a catharsis for the audience.

I found the idea of revenge in Kill Bill to be cheekier in nature.  More of a conceit.  In the end, it was the movie about a broken relationship.  Tarantino subverts the traditional final showdown and puts it at a dinner table to highlight the domestic in this dispute.  It just happens to be between movie assassins.

Meanwhile, as in Pulp Fiction, he reconfigures the tropes and familiar elements of these dark genre films in order to comment on it and make it something new.  He's not a cynic, he's not a nihilist; he's a romantic, often an optimist, and quite possibly even a moralist. 

The Bride's quest is undeniable, it's inexorable, like many films that explore the idea of revenge, it's the only thing she has.  But Tarantino fills the world with these recognizable movie signs; we see bits of Game of Death, Lady Snowblood, anime, Spaghetti Westerns, (he even visually quotes Samurai Fiction), which again highlight the artificiality of it.  In a way she's trapped in the trappings of genre.  But he gives her a happy ending, a purely joyful, human moment... and in doing so, just as in Jackie Brown, he shows his genuine affection for strong, independent women.

edit- these are some honest recollections of what I felt about these movies.  They've got a snowball's chance in hell of changing anything you think about Tarantino as an artist, but at least now you cannot say nobody tried to explain where they're coming from.  Hopefully that will at least be enough to get you to go find some actual astute film criticism on the subject, and realize there is actually quite a lot to discuss about Tarantino as an artist.

(and so help me God if you expect someone to go hunting for links.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

But just because his movies involve a lot of vengeance doesn't mean that's their theme, or that it's even an artistically competent one. Themes usually have to take a solid position on an issue in order to have any merit, i.e. the theme of Raging Bull is (or can be said to be) that the pursuit of masculinity is inherently violent. The theme isn't just "masculinity." Or in Munich -- vengeance begets more vengeance, leaving us with a moral quagmire. The essence of Tarantino films, the theme I guess, is that vengeance is really badass and that evil people deserve to die. Which I would argue is simply not complex enough to warrant the critical accolades Tarantino has received.

 

Movies are not necessarily defined by their thematics, but I think you have to be able to analyze a movie in order for it to have much value, and that discussion has to be in some way revealing in and of itself. Tarantino's films don't yield much discussion and the discussion that is to be had ("did Landa know that it was Shoshanna in the scene with the creme???") isn't of an academic nature.

It just depends on what kind of films the director is trying to make.  Tarantino isn't trying to make a Munich or a Raging Bull or a Godfather, at least not at this stage in his career.  Anyone expecting that kind of film from him is shooting themselves in the foot before watching his latest film.  It should be quite telling that he constantly quotes Brian De Palma from the interview he did with him.  To paraphrase, "just when you think you've come up with something interesting, there's always Scorsese coming along to top it".  He's constantly referred to Paul Thomas Anderson as his "Scorsese".....................which means Tarantino views himself as De Palma in the relationship.  It's an apt comparison, especially considering the fact that De Palma has been criticized for the exact same things over the course of his career (i.e. creating a pastiche of other films, constantly repeating himself in terms of themes and character, etc.).  Now it becomes a question of whether or not one thinks a filmmaker like Brian De Palma is just as important as one like Martin Scorsese.  Some do, some don't.  I'm in the former category.

Quentin isn't gunning to create "masterpieces of cinema".  He's just making the kind of movies that he would like to see.  The problem is that he doesn't want to see Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction over and over again, thus pissing off his fans that only want that kind of film from him.  I'm not saying that you are one of these people.  I'm just saying that many who have fallen off the QT wagon seem to fit into that category.........................which is funny, because both of those films are mainly Quentin just riffing on Melville.  Once he moved on to riffing off other "pulpier" influences (Shaw Bros, Corman, Italian exploitation, etc.), the fans went up in arms.

Also, not every film is striving to create hours of academic discussion.  I personally feel that there is plenty academic discussion to be had from the works of Tarantino.  That said, even if there isn't, that shouldn't be a blackmark on the films themselves.  There are countless movies that I hold as all-time favorites that don't really warrant heavy academic discussions.  Some movies are just striving to entertain and there is nothing wrong with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

 

 

That's just not correct.  There are plenty of movies that examine things that have no easy answers.  That just present something as it is and leave it up to the viewer to decide.

 

 

 

I got the exact opposite message from Inglourious Basterds.  In fact, in some ways its idea of vengeance is similar to Munich's.  But instead of making the futility of revenge the text, he made a rousing and violent war picture that rubbed our noses in the violence of the Basterds, and forced attentive audience members to question why it was so exciting to watch people get beaten with baseball bats, gunned down, and burned alive.  Yes, they were Nazis, but Tarantino was able to imbue many of the "grunt" soldiers with humanity.  And the Basterds tactics were supposed to recall terrorism....

 

Etc....

Well you're right about the fact that films don't have to be conclusive, but those films that aren't are usually structured in such a way that they raise a series of questions on the issue in the first place. So while they might not come up with a definitive answer on the subject, they at least offer a pretty thorough analysis of it, or at least a fresh way of tackling it. The 400 Blows is a great example. The movie's pretty much themeless, insofar as it has no message and just portrays a person's struggle -- and although it's more of a character study than a message movie, it is through that struggle that we can come to intellectually satisfying conclusions about, for example, how our lives are shaped by minor personal tragedies, how much of life is aimless and futile, how mystifying the selfishness of others can be, etc. I'm not suggesting every movie has to be The 400 Blows, of course, since that would be expecting a lot, but I would just like to see Tarantino attempt to make a film that is a STUDY of an issue he finds interesting, or at least attempt to imbue more of himself into his films than just his love of other films -- since this is what an artist is supposed to do, of course. So you're right, a movie doesn't have to be thematically conclusive, but it does have to be thematically exploratory and that's where Tarantino stumbles.

That reading of Basterds is simply not supported by anything in the actual movie. Technically you could say that The Expendables is a study of why we enjoy violence, or that any violent film automatically becomes a study, for "acute" viewers, of why we like watching violence -- and maybe that’s true, but there’s still not a contextual way to support that argument in Basterds, so it’s still not a validation for Tarantino as an artist any more than it would be for Stallone (as a director) or someone like Simon West. Sure, Tarantino humanizes the Nazi soldiers a little bit -- but I don't think that's inherently challenging unless you're the kind of person who thinks every Nazi during WWII had no feelings and was just an emotional husk manipulated by Hitler. And I'm surprised you went with the terrorism comparison for the Basterds themselves, since the film goes to great lengths to compare their tactics to the Apache resistance, what with the scalping and all. There is some good analysis to be had there I think (i.e. comparing the struggle of the Jews with the American Indians) and I'm surprised you skipped over it, but it's not enough to hang a movie on in my eyes and Tarantino mostly lets that subtext fall to the wayside. Anyway, it would be awesome if someone made a violent movie about how our culture rejoices in violence, and I think Tarantino would be perfectly suited to that task, but unfortunately I don't think Basterds is it.

I like your idea of Kill Bill actually being an analogy for a crumbling relationship, i.e. a divorce. I dunno if that was Tarantino’s intention (although it doesn’t really matter anyway), but I think you can probably find some good subtext for that argument in the film and I’ll keep that in mind the next time I watch it. Nice one.

I find the whole cinema-artifice argument to be a little more dubious though, since I have a hard time accepting that an artist who creates a pastiche of the movies he loves is suddenly making an educated comment on them just because. Abrams wasn’t commenting on Spielberg films when he made Super 8, he was just paying tribute to a filmmaker he loved and creating his own statement inside that fairly insular aesthetic Spielberg has honed – which is exactly what Tarantino does with all the influences you mentioned. But situating your own movie alongside the culturally significant films of other people doesn’t make it more valuable as a piece of art just because it’s now loosely associated with them – that much is just common sense. Abrams didn’t get a pass on this (and didn’t deserve to), so why does Tarantino?

I guess it must sound like I really fucking hate Tarantino, which I don't -- he's very good at what he does. I just don't think his movies are very academic or intellectually satisfying, and in my opinion, a filmmaker's movies MUST be valuable in this way in order to consider him a genuinely "great" filmmaker. Anyway sorry about the long-ass post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 
I just don't think his movies are very academic or intellectually satisfying, and in my opinion, a filmmaker's movies MUST be valuable in this way in order to consider him a genuinely "great" filmmaker. Anyway sorry about the long-ass post.

Where does Alfred Hitchcock fit into your definition?

As a side note, I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything.  I'm just trying to understand the criteria you are using to determine whether a filmmaker is great or not.  I'm actually really enjoying this ongoing conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

 

Anyway sorry about the long-ass post.

Hah!

You're nothing but long-ass posts. You're desperate to throw your intellectual weight around, desperate to prove how intelligent and studied you are. In fact I'm 95% sure you're an alt account for Dreary Louse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike Marshall 

Hah!

 

You're nothing but long-ass posts. You're desperate to throw your intellectual weight around, desperate to prove how intelligent and studied you are. In fact I'm 95% sure you're an alt account for Dreary Louse.

 

lol I just like talking about film, man. I'm not trying to prove shit, and it's too bad that you prefer to attack me personally rather than offer up anything useful to the discussion.

And I have no clue who Dreary Louse is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

Where does Alfred Hitchcock fit into your definition?

 

Maybe this will go a long way to prove how NOT studied I am in film, but I just haven't seen enough Hitchcock films to form a judgment on his stuff. It's a pretty gaping hole in my knowledge of movies, I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

I guess it must sound like I really fucking hate Tarantino, which I don't -- he's very good at what he does. I just don't think his movies are very academic or intellectually satisfying, and in my opinion, a filmmaker's movies MUST be valuable in this way in order to consider him a genuinely "great" filmmaker. Anyway sorry about the long-ass post.

This is a little akin to the kind of snobbery that dictates Academy Awards and the like.

Why does a film have to have explicit, obvious text about the human condition to be an example of great film-making, to you? Because that attitude mostly leads to terribly dreary, earnest identikit prestige stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder  There is some good analysis to be had there I think (i.e. comparing the struggle of the Jews with the American Indians) and I'm surprised you skipped over it, but it's not enough to hang a movie on in my eyes and Tarantino mostly lets that subtext fall to the wayside.

But it's there. That's what subtext is. If you make it explicit, and into a "message" for the film, it becomes text.

What? It doesn't lead to terribly dreary earnest Academy Award prestige stuff at all. Just look at this year. Social Network, Inception, Black Swan, etc. are all thematically dense, reasonably high-brow movies (perhaps not about the human condition necessarily, but I never said that) and they certainly aren't dreary prestige films. The only nominated movie that seemed blatantly like a prestige film was King's Speech, and I would argue it was the least thematically complex movie of all the nominees, except for maybe The Fighter. So no, the kind of snobbery I'm advocating does not result in dreary prestige products of the kind the Academy holds in such high esteem. Plus, Basterds was nominated for best picture, so I'm really not sure what you're getting at.

Anyway I'm not saying that a movie has to explicitly and obviously tackle great themes in order to be good, but it should have themes that are revealed when you analyze it. I appreciate subtlety as much as the next guy, but you can't say that a movie with no theme is just being really subtle about having one.

Edit: I think you interpreted by statement about how Tarantino lets his subtext "fall to the wayside" as meaning he doesn't hold it out at the front of the movie. Sorry -- I meant that he fails to develop it consistently throughout the movie, and drops it pretty quickly in favor of his revisionist fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 
 I just don't think his movies are very academic or intellectually satisfying, and in my opinion, a filmmaker's movies MUST be valuable in this way in order to consider him a genuinely "great" filmmaker. 

Always fun to see a blossoming contrarian right after he finishes a freshman film analysis course.  Yikes.  

Nevermind the revenge angle in Inglorious Basterds; structurally yes, its a revenge flick.  Thematically though, Tarantino is interested in the power of film and the impact it has.  He's making some pretty profound statements - chief among them that cinema itself has the power to end World War II.  This is the film's through-line.  Coming from a guy who is as enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the medium as Tarantino, I find this incredibly satisfying.  Intellectually and academically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

Maybe this will go a long way to prove how NOT studied I am in film, but I just haven't seen enough Hitchcock films to form a judgment on his stuff. It's a pretty gaping hole in my knowledge of movies, I know.

 

Don't feel bad.  There are PLENTY of classics that I haven't seen.  Anyway, I was asking because while his works are extremely technically proficient and stylistic, Hitchcock's chief concern always seemed to be entertainment above all else.  If he couldn't hook you in with a good mystery or a dazzling sequence (be it action or otherwise), he didn't seem to be interested.........at least from a directorial point-of-view.

On a side note, Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Welles apparently proclaimed the exact same movie as being one of their all-time favorites.............................Smokey and the Bandit!

I only recently learned that Terrence Malick just LOVES Zoolander.

Well if you say it, it must be true.

 The way Tarantino lingers on Donnie's crazed visage, the image of Shoshanna and Zoeller writhing on the ground, the apocalyptic feel of the theater fire, the mixture of triumph and queasiness we feel when Aldo carves a swastika into his victims... all these things carry weight, and leave a message.  What you're essentially saying is that because I get things out of a Tarantino movie that you didn't, that means anybody can read anything into any movie.

But it's not "just because."  It's dependent upon what one gets out of those bits of intertextuality.  Apparently you got nothing out of them, but that's not a reason to call the device into question.

I think it's natural to look at how a movie might relate to things going on in its own era.  The American Indian stuff was right there in the text (also another bit of cheek, since Jews are occasionally referred to as "The Tribe", hell, Shoshanna puts on her makeup like war paint), but, then again, Apache tactics can be compared with modern day terror tactics, as could the US dropping smallpox blankets. It's not difficult to imagine it's a reaction to the way the Bush administration made political hay out of terror tactics.  The simple truth, of course, being that, depending on what context we put violent action in, we may deem the same method we demonize today as acceptable yesterday or tomorrow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

Quote:

Always fun to see a blossoming contrarian right after he finishes a freshman film analysis course.  Yikes.  

 

Nevermind the revenge angle in Inglorious Basterds; structurally yes, its a revenge flick.  Thematically though, Tarantino is interested in the power of film and the impact it has.  He's making some pretty profound statements - chief among them that cinema itself has the power to end World War II.  This is the film's through-line.  Coming from a guy who is as enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the medium as Tarantino, I find this incredibly satisfying.  Intellectually and academically.

 

 

Wow, can we please give it a rest with the personal attacks? For fuck's sake, I should only have to defend the arguments I make, not my personal integrity. Overall I think it's a good sign that I'm pissing people off a little bit here, but it's still pretty ridiculous that I have to even acknowledge someone who tries to invalidate my opinion by unwarrantedly claiming it to be the product of a university film class.

And yeah, I know about the whole self-reflexive cinema angle Basterds has, since that was one of the main ways people justified their love for the movie when it came out, i.e. Devin. But just like how revenge isn't a theme just because it's the subject of your movie, your movie doesn't become a comment on movies just because a lot of characters in your movie are involved with movies and plot is kind of situated around film culture. For example, is he really saying that cinema has the power to end WWII when he's also just illustrated that it can be easily manipulated by propaganda artists to persuade people into blindly idolizing a simpering douchebag like Zoller? Is he really saying that cinema can end WWII when he provides no examination of how exactly film is so powerful beyond the fact that it's flammable and thus can burn down buildings? I mean, come on -- it's not cinema that ends the war in Basterds, it's a bunch of bullets and explosions.

If you were sitting in your living room watching a movie, and then someone walked in and shot you, you'd probably find it an outrage if someone came to the conclusion that it must have been the amazing power of cinema that killed you. Similarly, it's not cinema that kills Hitler in Basterds, it's a bunch of angry Jews with machine guns -- especially since the way Tarantino "ends" WWII is just by killing off every major Nazi leader. Thus, if Basterds is really an examination of the unifying power of the movies or something, it's a very mundane and simple-minded one that certainly doesn't qualify as thematically good or even passable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

Wow, can we please give it a rest with the personal attacks? For fuck's sake, I should only have to defend the arguments I make, not my personal integrity. Overall I think it's a good sign that I'm pissing people off a little bit here, but it's still pretty ridiculous that I have to even acknowledge someone who tries to invalidate my opinion by unwarrantedly claiming it to be the product of a university film class.

 

And yeah, I know about the whole self-reflexive cinema angle Basterds has, since that was one of the main ways people justified their love for the movie when it came out, i.e. Devin. But just like how revenge isn't a theme just because it's the subject of your movie, your movie doesn't become a comment on movies just because a lot of characters in your movie are involved with movies and plot is kind of situated around film culture. For example, is he really saying that cinema has the power to end WWII when he's also just illustrated that it can be easily manipulated by propaganda artists to persuade people into blindly idolizing a simpering douchebag like Zoller? Is he really saying that cinema can end WWII when he provides no examination of how exactly film is so powerful beyond the fact that it's flammable and thus can burn down buildings? I mean, come on -- it's not cinema that ends the war in Basterds, it's a bunch of bullets and explosions.

 

If you were sitting in your living room watching a movie, and then someone walked in and shot you, you'd probably find it an outrage if someone came to the conclusion that it must have been the amazing power of cinema that killed you. Similarly, it's not cinema that kills Hitler in Basterds, it's a bunch of angry Jews with machine guns -- especially since the way Tarantino "ends" WWII is just by killing off every major Nazi leader. Thus, if Basterds is really an examination of the unifying power of the movies or something, it's a very mundane and simple-minded one that certainly doesn't qualify as thematically good or even passable.

I think you're just set on dissing at it this point. Plenty of the posts above illustrate why Inglourious Basterds has cinematic worth and intellectual value. You don't get it, fine, but that doesn't make it a bad film. It is a great film, and it was certainly the best film of 2009. I don't think any of the arguments really hold any water, as not every film needs a strong moral, or statement of purpose to be great. Sergio Leone's early work does not attempt to be anything more rollicking fun, and the Dollars Trilogy and those films are example of some of the finest filmmaking ever seen. Tarantino knows how to tell a story in pictures, whether or not you like the story or think that it is lacking in intellectual merit is besides the point. Inglourious Basterds accomplished what it wanted to. I think through its triptych of characters Tarantino examines the nature of evil, the entire film is a reflexsive study about the power of cinema. It is expertly shot, extremely well paced, and most enjoyable. Just because the elements that make it great do not appeal to you does not negate its status as a modern masterpiece of cinema.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

 For example, is he really saying that cinema has the power to end WWII when he's also just illustrated that it can be easily manipulated by propaganda artists to persuade people into blindly idolizing a simpering douchebag like Zoller?

I would say it's about cinema's ability to hold sway over an audience, for good and ill.  What was the famous quote?  Something about the most important movie ever made might be a very bad one?  Both ideas exist in the film simultaneously.  It also goes back to that thing about what is artificial in movies.  There's another famous quote that says all movies are lies.  For some it felt like a provocation that Tarantino was rewriting history in such a blatant way.  But all historical movies do that. He was playing with the audience's boundaries, its comfort level.  A rather novel way of creating a distancing effect that takes the audience out of the narrative and forces them to reflect on what they're watching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

 

I would say it's about cinema's ability to hold sway over an audience, for good and ill.  What was the famous quote?  Something about the most important movie ever made might be a very bad one?  Both ideas exist in the film simultaneously.  It also goes back to that thing about what is artificial in movies.  There's another famous quote that says all movies are lies.  For some it felt like a provocation that Tarantino was rewriting history in such a blatant way.  But all historical movies do that. He was playing with the audience's boundaries, its comfort level.  A rather novel way of creating a distancing effect that takes the audience out of the narrative and forces them to reflect on what they're watching.

I also have to say that it is actually quite cathartic on a primal level to see Hitler's face get machine gunned into oblivion, which is obviously what Tarantino wanted, it feels good to watch Hitler die like that. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoMoreMrNiceGaius 

I also have to say that it is actually quite cathartic on a primal level to see Hitler's face get machine gunned into oblivion, which is obviously what Tarantino wanted, it feels good to watch Hitler die like that. 

Yes, definitely.  It's a triumph.  It's a shocking "what the fuck" moment.  It's disgustingly violent.  All of that.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

 

For example, is he really saying that cinema has the power to end WWII when he's also just illustrated that it can be easily manipulated by propaganda artists to persuade people into blindly idolizing a simpering douchebag like Zoller?

 

Yes.  The fact that cinema CAN be manipulated to persuade people into blindly idolizing a guy like Zoller is testament to its power.  Tarantino certainly is saying that.  And more to the point, so is Goebbels.  His inclusion in the movie was not arbitrary.  

Ok well, I would grant you that IF the movie managed to be a thorough examination of cinema's ability to alter public opinion and guide us towards different perspectives (or corrupt us as in Goebbels' case), but Inglourious is definitely not such a film, for reasons I went into above. If you really like that idea though, you might want to check out 8 1/2.

Anyway, to be honest it doesn't seem like anybody is even interested in providing a persuasive argument in favor of Tarantino's legitimacy as an artist, so I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.

Even Shoshanna couldn't help but feel a sense of tenderness towards a man who had just threatened to rape her.  She just shot the guy for it, but sees his performance in Goebbel's film and exposes a moment of weakness which she pays for.

I think you had some valid points, JMulder.  I think a lot of what you criticize Tarantino for is something that has been applied to Zack Snyder's films (just alluding to something once doesn't necessarily mean exploration).  That is something I agree with for Snyder, though I don't agree with the same criticism towards Tarantino. 

But you're starting to come across like you want to take the ball and go home with your last comment.  Some people have been giving you valid examples and points of discussion, but you kinda brushed those aside simply because IB wasn't a "thorough examination of cinema's ability to alter public opinion."  That doesn't seem quite fair. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

Ok well, I would grant you that IF the movie managed to be a thorough examination of cinema's ability to alter public opinion and guide us towards different perspectives (or corrupt us as in Goebbels' case), but Inglourious is definitely not such a film, for reasons I went into above. If you really like that idea though, you might want to check out 8 1/2.

 

Anyway, to be honest it doesn't seem like anybody is even interested in providing a persuasive argument in favor of Tarantino's legitimacy as an artist, so I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.

It kind of seems like you're ignoring dissenting opinions and giving the same blanket responses. If you don't like it that's fine. But all you're are saying is that it doesn't have anything to say when other people are giving you legitimate examples, and you are failing to properly back up your argument. I get it you don't like it. I use to have the same opinion about Tarantino as you when I was in high school and I only liked high brow art films. Now I can what a master of the craft Tarantino is. If you can't then it's your loss. 
 

Just finished the script. Not the biggest fan of Foxx but I think he's a much better choice for the role than Smith or Elba. The role needs a combination of dramatic/comedic skills - Smith brings too much comedy baggage and I looooove Elba but can't say I've seen a comedic side.

Can't wait to see the reception this film is gonna get, QT's going to push a lot of buttons with this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry_Hill 

Just finished the script. Not the biggest fan of Foxx but I think he's a much better choice for the role than Smith or Elba. The role needs a combination of dramatic/comedic skills - Smith brings too much comedy baggage and I looooove Elba but can't say I've seen a comedic side.

 

Can't wait to see the reception this film is gonna get, QT's going to push a lot of buttons with this one.

Agreed.  As much as I love Elba, he was wrong for the part.  Can you honestly see Elba taking ANY shit from a slave owner?  That said, Idris might have made a great Stephen.  Anyway, it's all for naught since he's going to be kicking alien monster ass for Guillermo Del Toro.

At this point, I'm very eager to see how the supporting roles fill out in Django Unchained.  Most of them aren't large roles, but there are quite a few juicy little parts in there that I can imagine many actors would jump at the chance to play.

Thanks mcnooj for recognizing that I have some valid points; I'm not really trying to run away with the ball though. I've made a lot of points that I thought were quite lucid that have been completely ignored. Plus, I'm debating against three or four other people at once, half of whom are calling me a cunt and a film school lackey who only likes high art films (which is stupid, I mean I just finished arguing in another thread about how Cars 2 is actually good for crying out loud) so it's a little hard to rebut every person as much as would probably be fair.

Anyway, as I see it (and we'll confine the discussion to Basterds here just because that's mostly what we've been talking about, and it is emblematic of Tarantino's work as a whole and everyone can agree it's probably his 2nd best film) the main arguments in favor of Basterds as a great work of art have been these, which anybody can add to or revise, since obviously I'm biased: 

1. It rubs our collective nose in violence in an attempt to push the boundaries of what we deem acceptable or comfortable, and through historical revisionism it is providing audiences with an emotional catharsis that we at once rejoice in and find disgustingly violent -- this challenges us.

2. It is ultimately a treatise on the power of cinema to hold sway over its audience (or even an entire nation), for good or ill. When considered in tandem with point 1, the movie becomes a self-reflexive examination of a culture's indulgence in violence -- i.e., how can we deride the Nazis for laughing along with Zoller's exploits in Nation's Pride, while at the same time enjoying the haphazard murder of Nazis throughout the movie?

3. The tactics of the Basterds are comparable with earlier bushwhackin' guerilla resistance movements such as American Indians (in the text) and terrorists (in the subtext -- personally I'd like more evidence for this though). This compares the persecution of different ethnic and cultural groups (Natives, Jews, Muslims) throughout history as not only resulting in similar methods of violent reprisal, but as having similar root causes and therefore embodying similar moral dilemmas.

There is also some stuff above about how the 3 principal characters form a triptych of different degrees of evil (which I don't get, since then you could just as well say that any war movie is an examination of good and evil -- it comes with the territory, and is basically just a reiteration of "revenge is the theme") and how it's really well shot and stuff, which nobody can deny. The movie looks real nice, makes interesting musical choices, has great performances (except for Pitt, who I hate in this movie, but that's just IMO), all that superficial stuff is spot-on and I was never calling that into question anyway. This is an argument about thematics (or characterization, which was another earlier gripe of mine), not pacing, cinematography, etc. Unless those things are directly related the thematics of the movie, which is entirely possible but you would need to provide examples of, then they're more or less irrelevant.

Anyway it's late now, so I'll let you guys mull those points over and add to it if you want, and I can come back tomorrow and try to do some more refutin'. I did already address most of these points, though. And if anyone else reading this discussion harbors a secret grudge against Tarantino then they can come and join my team, haha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

Anyway it's late now, so I'll let you guys mull those points over and add to it if you want, and I can come back tomorrow and try to do some more refutin'. I did already address most of these points, though. And if anyone else reading this discussion harbors a secret grudge against Tarantino then they can come and join my team, haha.

...and that is why you fail.

You're not interested in sharing ideas or even open to the possibility of having your mind changed, as you said yourself above, any point being made that contradicts your position you see as nothing but a challenge to be refuted rather than taken in and actually respected or listened to. Heaven forbid someone else brings a perspective to the discussion you hadn't taken into consideration before.

At a certain point mate, intellectual masturbation ceases to hide your insecurities and starts to point them out for all to see. 

I hope Jamie Foxx wins another oscar for this just to make Will Smith cry.

Hah, just catching up with this thread now, and JMulder's last post makes an excellent argument for why Basterds actually is a masterpiece, and none of his refutations (that I could find) come close to touching that. And it's always a pleasure to see Bailey really have at something. Seriously dude, I really love reading your posts. But beyond that, there's plenty of deep thinking, passionate feelings, butthurt, a few good jokes, and as always, Rain Dog calling someone a insecure nerd. Truly this isn't so much a good Chud thread as it is ALL good Chud threads.

Am I known for calling people insecure nerds?

Hey, thanks, Arjen.  That's a very cool thing to read... especially when one has to be up at this ungodly hour.  I enjoy your posts as well.