tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post5230891017422312911..comments2023-04-11T03:27:30.609-07:00Comments on The Exploding Kinetoscope: For Bravery: Das Unheimliche and INGLOURIOUS BASTERDSChris Stanglhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06300723935864517305noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-31843228922979497352009-12-28T11:14:07.548-08:002009-12-28T11:14:07.548-08:00Hi Chris:
I've read your piece multiple times...Hi Chris:<br /><br />I've read your piece multiple times and after receiving a blueray copy of Inglourious Basterds for Christmas, I eagerly skipped to the cafe scene in Chapter Three based on the following:<br /><br />"...Tarantino composes for the entire frame, constructs screen geography by holding shots as long as possible and, in Basterds in particular, uses deep focus to impart as much information as possible in a shot. Take some time with the scene in which Zoller pesters Shosanna in a cafe...Tarantino places Shosanna by the storefront window and keeps everything mostly in focus from the woman in the foreground to the buildings across the street. Sidewalk pedestrians recognizing Zoller are fully visible as they move from exterior to interior space, and several interlocking stories are being told at once."<br /><br />I thought I had missed this entirely in my initial viewing in the theatre but after going over the scene several times on blueray I'm not sure if I see what you have described. I see pedestrians going about their business but nothing that resembles any reaction to their recognition of Zoller. Thoughts?Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-34582459114162233472009-10-09T23:00:52.095-07:002009-10-09T23:00:52.095-07:00Damn, and I walked out 2 hours into it. The girl I...Damn, and I walked out 2 hours into it. The girl I was with wasn't into it and the bar scene was dragging. I felt this was easily Quentin's least mature work. He has a very good understanding of the mechanics of film, a geeky encyclopedic knowledge but I think his ego has outgrown his potential to tell stories. With all the mish-moshing of styles, I found the "characters" if you will, very two-dimensional. QT was one of my favorite directors but I honestly doubt I'll ever bother watching the final 40 minutes of Basterds. Reading the review, I know what happens, and I can honestly say I don't care.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-30504579666582447002009-09-21T20:51:50.860-07:002009-09-21T20:51:50.860-07:00Can this make us feel better, or is even the imagi...<i>Can this make us feel better, or is even the imaginary act of turning Nazi atrocities against them too mad and debasing? There aren't answers, but INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS takes care to remind us in pivotal moments what is exceptional about these villains (the Nazis are "humanized" a little -- they were/are humans after all, and that's what's truly frightening, revolting and important to remember -- but in the end they are Nazis), and, however unhealthy we're having this fantasy anyway. That, unto itself, is a kinda pretty, honest and human position for a storyteller to take.</i><br /><br /><br />For me, Nazis like Zoller were never "humanized". They were simply being human beings . . . like the rest of us. The reason, I believe, they became Nazis in the first place was due to their human nature. Being human can be about being compassionate and loving. It can also be about having the capacity to be a monster. And nearly every human being has that capacity. As history has taught us, human beings from many countries and cultures (including ours) have proven just how monstrous they can be. What the Nazi did . . . was nothing new.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-82035639150455711812009-09-21T09:37:45.824-07:002009-09-21T09:37:45.824-07:00Re: Craig's comment about POV
Chris wrote Bef...Re: Craig's comment about POV<br /><br />Chris wrote <i>Before anyone could reasonably begin processing what this means, that Tarantino has willingly drawn connection between his imagined audience and a theater full of Nazis, and thereby implicated himself....</i> referring to Hitler "really getting into it" while watching "A Nation's Pride." I think the connection is that many in Tarantino's audience enjoy Tarantino's films very much for the violence, very similar to the way Hitler and the Nazi high command are reveling in the violence in the film they are viewing.Jim Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-79443028547465003172009-09-13T20:22:08.047-07:002009-09-13T20:22:08.047-07:00Thanks, Craig. I understand better what you were ...Thanks, Craig. I understand better what you were getting at. Those POV shots are indeed odd -- with the Basterds talking about the branded Nazis (and looking at the camera) as if they're not there. (Passed out, perhaps?) I'm not sure what to make of 'em.jim emersonhttp://blogs.suntimes.com/scannersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-80901941560550560782009-09-11T03:47:26.497-07:002009-09-11T03:47:26.497-07:00Thanks for responding, Jim -
Implicated, in a sen...Thanks for responding, Jim -<br /><br />Implicated, <i>in a sense</i>, is what I wrote, meaning I wasn't taking my own words too literally because I wasn't fully sure what I meant either.<br /><br />Here's my thought process, though: I was thinking about what Chris and others have written with regard to the Nazis' "humanity" in the film, and thinking about what Ed Howard wrote in his "Conversation" with Jason Bellamy about how Tarantino rarely has POV shots like that that essentially break the fourth wall - that there's usually a reason for them. And I was thinking about how odd and uncomfortable both shots made me feel, which I initially attributed to the violence and cruelty. That's part of it. But then I realized it's also the vulnerability of the angle, putting the audience essentially prostrate on the ground as Pitt and his big knife loom overhead, putting us in the eyes of a pair of Nazi characters who may deserve what they get and whom we want to see punished. That's what I meant by redirecting our desires for vengeance against us. Does that make sense?Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-76228226599941908242009-09-10T20:38:00.681-07:002009-09-10T20:38:00.681-07:00Chris: A belated thank you for your thoughtful an...Chris: A belated thank you for your thoughtful and eloquent reply. I can't think of many filmmakers whose work I find less emotionally affecting than Tarantino's. Even Kubrick, Haneke, von Trier (all widely considered emotionally detached filmmakers) seem warmer to me -- and De Palma and Leone are operatic in ways that have no equivalent in Tarantino's work. (The end of the projection booth and the Giant Face come mighty close, though.) Again, I'm not saying that as a criticism, because I don't think QT's movies, from the evidence I see on the screen anyway, display much interest in evoking emotion. Thank you for articulating so well how you see them.<br /><br /><br /><i>We the audience are Butz and Landa; we are implicated, in a sense, as Nazis. So while we're certainly invited to share in the movie's catharsis, Tarantino also makes sure to redirect it against us.</i><br /><br />Craig, I'm not sure I follow. I realize that the camera is placed in the position of the Basterds' Nazi prey (after they get their foreheads carved with swastikas), but how does the movie implicate the audience as Nazis? Are Shoshanna and Marcel the equivalent of Nazis, too?jim emersonhttp://blogs.suntimes.com/scannersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-55283307498818100482009-09-10T14:32:28.539-07:002009-09-10T14:32:28.539-07:00Wow Chris, thanks for this amazing piece of writin...Wow Chris, thanks for this amazing piece of writing (and thanks to Jim for pointing me this way). <br /><br />I've seen the film three times now, and it has gotten better with each viewing. During the last one, I was holding back tears when Shosanna was getting ready for her big night to Bowie's song, because I was just so moved by the great filmmaking on display (don't even get me started on the close-up of Marcel saying "Oui, Shosanna" with a smile, right before flicking his cigarette. Just thinking about it makes me well up).<br /><br />I wrote a review as well, which also referenced that Captain America cover, but sadly it's in Dutch. Still, if anyone happens to understand my language, here's a link: http://www.mixedgrill.nl/2009/08/27/recensie-inglorious-basterds/<br /><br />Thanks again Chris! Great work!Reinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06753420623781982484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-337454647360073882009-09-09T19:35:33.563-07:002009-09-09T19:35:33.563-07:00There aren't answers here, but the question is...<i>There aren't answers here, but the question is certainly being weighed: is this an "okay" fantasy, or too soul-polluting to serve a cleansing function? Can this make us feel better, or is even the imaginary act of turning Nazi atrocities against them too mad and debasing? There aren't answers, but INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS takes care to remind us in pivotal moments what is exceptional about these villains (the Nazis are "humanized" a little -- they were/are humans after all, and that's what's truly frightening, revolting and important to remember -- but in the end they are Nazis), and, however unhealthy we're having this fantasy anyway. That, unto itself, is a kinda pretty, honest and human position for a storyteller to take.</i><br /><br />This is very enlightening, and I think I agree; but out of sheer perversity let's add another layer (because Tarantino does). Only twice in this film do characters directly address the camera, and both times it happens when Raine brands a Nazi. The first time it's when Raine marks Pvt. Butz, and the second is when he marks Landa. Most of the attention in both instances has been on the dialogue ("Practice," "This may just be my masterpiece"), but this overlooks the POV of each shot. The POV is us. But it's also Butz and Landa. We the audience <i>are</i> Butz and Landa; we are implicated, in a sense, as Nazis. So while we're certainly invited to share in the movie's catharsis, Tarantino also makes sure to redirect it against us.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-81535130045626990802009-09-09T03:31:42.146-07:002009-09-09T03:31:42.146-07:00Oh, and Dennis, thanks again for the traffic boost...Oh, and Dennis, thanks again for the traffic boost, and quote all you want! It's all for charity, folks!Chris Stanglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06300723935864517305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-57579977795901116772009-09-09T03:29:49.542-07:002009-09-09T03:29:49.542-07:00(cont'd)
As for the potential of INGLOURIOUS ...(cont'd)<br /><br />As for the potential of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS as a morality play, and what is going on in Operation Kino and in Rachtman's last stand... We're outside the real life "what would I do" problem and inside it at the same time. It is a story about storytelling. I am loathe to quote artists on their own work as a means of prying open the text, but I came independently to the same conclusion as Tarantino when he enthuses "... At some point those Nazi uniforms went away and they were people being burned alive. I think that’s part of the thing that fucks with the catharsis. And that’s a good thing." A juvenile way of putting it, perhaps, and not a complete statement of artistic purpose. There aren't answers here, but the question is certainly being weighed: is this an "okay" fantasy, or too soul-polluting to serve a cleansing function? Can this make us feel better, or is even the imaginary act of turning Nazi atrocities against them too mad and debasing? There aren't answers, but INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS takes care to remind us in pivotal moments what is exceptional about these villains (the Nazis are "humanized" a little -- they were/are humans after all, and that's what's truly frightening, revolting and important to remember -- but in the end they are <i>Nazis</i>), and, however unhealthy <i>we're having this fantasy anyway.</i> That, unto itself, is a kinda pretty, honest and human position for a storyteller to take.Chris Stanglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06300723935864517305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-54037732651113459452009-09-09T03:29:16.169-07:002009-09-09T03:29:16.169-07:00(cont'd)
Crying is, of course, a terrible yard...(cont'd)<br />Crying is, of course, a terrible yardstick for these matters. But yeah, I've cried at every Tarantino feature but JACKIE BROWN. I do feel Tarantino believes his characters and their stories down to the guts. It's not really about liking or sympathizing with characters but being interested and invested in them as make-believe people and recognizing, empathizing with the core emotion in inflated circumstances. So the huge beats -- Jules' conversion, that moment he closes his eyes and makes the choice in the Hawthorne Grill, Mr. Orange's dying confession to the moaning Mr. White, Beatrix weeping with joy and horror on the bathroom floor -- are big Movie stuff, stories well told, cinema well rendered, but emotional crises so perilous and enlarged they are not of my (our) experience. I can't say I relate on a one-to-one basis, but I smell the happy stink of humanity, which is approximately what I'd say about RICHARD III and OTHELLO. I don't know an O-Ren Ishii, but I know women who had tough lives and responded by turning into bad motherfuckers, and in any case, I recognize the person in that supervillain. I get her. And I almost don't want to overstate this, because a lot of what's going on is characters dealing with movie universe abstracts with real responses; PULP FICTION doesn't tell me anything about the numbed psyche that must come with being a hitman, or BASTERDS about the daily ethical confusion of living in an occupied nation, but the characters react to outrageous extremes in otherwise very real ways.<br /><br />See, at the same time, Tarantino's films are loaded and made of experiences I've gone through, relate to, recognize, scenes and feelings not often portrayed in the genres being mashed-up. A personal favorite scene in PULP FICTION is of Vincent Vega in the Wallace bathroom after his not-a-date with Mia. It obviously turned into a date, and our ethically-challanged protagonist gives himself a pep talk in the mirror: do <i>not</i> sleep with this woman. You want to (will), can (will) but it's a terrible idea, and if you do, you are failing a moral test (that you made up for yourself). And I know that bathroom debate, even if the stakes were not life-and-death. And I know Jimmie Dimmick's situation, as friends call in an improbably inconvenient favor and you know you'll relent but not without pushing those friends' buttons and whining the whole time. And Hattori Hanzo turning over the finest sword he ever made: I promised my God/myself I would never do this ever again, but here I am doing it. And Bill and Beatrix: hey, we aren't supposed to be together, but you're the best and I want you to be okay and I want you to give you closure. And Jungle Julia buoyant-to-disappointed text message mini-romance, hooray, aw, shit. Shossanna trying to drink coffee, smoke and chill out while a blowhard keeps flirting with her. Whether we've lived this stuff or not, most all of Tarantino's characters are given dimension and shade beyond archetype, quirk-n'-virtue, and film reference.<br /><br />But no, probably not Adolf Hitler.<br /> (cont'd)Chris Stanglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06300723935864517305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-62950579615907363242009-09-09T03:28:33.952-07:002009-09-09T03:28:33.952-07:00First off, thanks to everyone for the linkage, and...First off, thanks to everyone for the linkage, and I wish my Internet Self weren't so dawdling about keeping dialogues going...<br /><br />Jim -- I'm happy you had time to read this piece, though it ended up more argumentative than the celebration I had intended. I think "Herr Meets Hare" is a fantastic reference point for the film -- if not in general tone, but at the very least, BASTERDS yanks its version of Hitler straight from period Warner Bros cartoons. It is a strong choice, a potentially damaging one that is amply balanced by the other major Nazi characters. We take cartoons very seriously around here too (and I'm a cartoonist), so I don't take the Looney Tunes comparison to be inherently derisive.<br /><br />I read your piece as linking the two films' spirit of pop cult and cinema-form play, impeccable professional sheen (a worthy achievement in itself, in this worst of all possible eras for popular movies and animation alike) to a sort of developed, less backhanded version of Option #2 in Dana Poland's PULP FICTION monograph: the film's strength is that it "says" nothing, and if it does, it speaks only about itself or about The Movies. Its depth is its surface, or it is shallow but <i>good</i> shallow, <i>on purpose</i> shallow. "Shallow" not being unfelt or stupid, but "surfacey": like a Warhol silkscreen or screentest, if it's About something, it's about the process of picture-making. Again, that may be plenty, no mean feat, and provide a bounty of interesting criticism (indeed, not "shallow and hollow" but maybe surfacey and ripe). But I don't believe it's all Tarantino is up to, I don't think these stories and characters are intellectual constructs, but feel them pulse and bleed and sweat, feel them grieve and love (?) and laugh and be very afraid. I feel them thinking and knowing. Not as viscerally or naturalistically as, I dunno, IKIRU or THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT or CHARLEY VARRICK. But they aren't the shiny gamepiece creatures of LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD.<br /><br />I try to avoid the loaded/empty trap of accusing art of being "deep" ("shallow," however, I'll do). Art only runs as deep as we're willing to go, and as the text provides more to chew on as we burrow in -- termite art indeed. Great pop art -- "great trash" as it were -- may have lovely water flowers floating on its surface tension, but goes a long way down; it resonates because there are living sea monsters under there. I'm thinking of the tech sheen of Phil Specter girl group records concealing/conveying an oceanic quantity of yearning and heartache, of Nabokov's shifting panes of reflective glass capturing layers of colored smoke and how much of the human condition gets trapped in the air filters. If we want to look at beautifully rendered, ultimately hollow models of hearts and brains, I'd look to Spielberg, Kubrick, Disney. I do put Tarantino in a kind of shallow-deep entertainers club with Lynch, Von Sternberg, Leone, (and most of all) the Coen brothers. You get back what you're willing to put in. There are books worth of criticism to be written on form and theme but the deeper we can stomach chewing, the greater the banquet of ideas and mystery. I don't mean to stratify, but as genius manipulators, intellectual picture puzzle makers, I'd list Godard, Hitchcock, Welles, De Palma, Argento; they get a response -- and how! -- and there is an infinity to talk about, but I don't know that they want to get their hands on your soul.<br /> (cont'd)Chris Stanglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06300723935864517305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-56088139283467463032009-09-08T22:40:31.646-07:002009-09-08T22:40:31.646-07:00I really felt that the final apocalypse was a refe...I really felt that the final apocalypse was a reference to Raiders of the Lost Ark than Carrie. Raiders' finale of course has the Ark of the Covenant (a Jewish religious symbol) being opened the angel turning into an angel of death, who then melts the Nazis. Probably the greatest mass killing of Nazis on screen.<br /><br />Similiarly, Tarantino takes a beautiful Jewish girl's face, turns it into a smoky apparition that kills a bunch of Nazis.Dan R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-77553389679486427582009-09-08T12:06:11.005-07:002009-09-08T12:06:11.005-07:00Jim -
I'm rarely "moved to tears" b...Jim -<br /><br />I'm rarely "moved to tears" by anyone's films, so I can't say that's exclusively the province of Quentin Tarantino. But I often find his films touching, and not just "Jackie Brown." In "Pulp Fiction," I am moved by several moments: Travolta and Thurman's dance; Travolta blowing Thurman a kiss; Bruce Willis apologizing to Maria de Medeiros after flying into a rage over the watch; Ving Rhames pardoning Willis; Samuel L. Jackson's quiet moment of reflection before the restaurant robbery; the interaction between Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer after Jackson turns the tables on them.<br /><br />What am I responding to in those moments? Maybe it's how the humanity of those characters bursts through the tough-guy (or -gal) bluster. I could say the same for the closing passages of "Kill Bill: Vol. 2," when Beatrix and Bill shed their superhero/supervillain skins and become something recognizably human. When Uma Thurman lies on the bathroom floor and gives thanks, that's a touching moment for me. QT has a way of staging scenes like this so you don't get the sense that he's crowding you emotionally; he gives you the freedom to have your own responses, and I like that.<br /><br />That said, I did weep during "Inglourious Basterds," in part due to character moments, but I think on a larger scale to a combination of images and elements -- what you simply and accurately called "the filmmaking" and the experience watching it.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-39099310188214406702009-09-07T21:05:10.798-07:002009-09-07T21:05:10.798-07:00PPS. Ooops. Apologies. I mischaracterized what ...PPS. Ooops. Apologies. I mischaracterized what <i>I</i> actually wrote! Here's what I said, with a little more context: <br /><br /><i>There's not much more to the story, really, except that it takes place in an alternative universe. As I wrote earlier: QT's movies "are abstract art, not strong stories, not emotional experiences. I thought of Hitchcock, who said his films are not slices of life but slices of cake. Tarantino makes candy necklaces, tasty chunks strung together -- little climaxes without much overall dramatic shape." I should clarify: Although Tarantino himself describes the structure of the "Kill Bill" movies as simply checking off items on a list, both "Bill" volumes and "Inglourious Basterds" do build, not strictly chronologically, to climactic showdowns.</i><br /><br />So, I was too short and vague there. What do I mean by "not strong stories"? I was playing off of QT's own remarks that "Kill Bill" wasn't much of a story but a simple revenge movie. Tarantino's movies are cleverly structured, but not highly developed stories. They're pretty basic. As for "not emotional experiences"... that's not the same as saying the films are "shallow and hollow." I compared him to Warhol, not to Jeff Koons! So, to elaborate, I'll just quote this from later in the same piece:<br /><br /><i>I suppose it is possible for, say, a Warhol silkscreen or a Schwitters collage or a Lichtenstein comic-painting to get an emotional response from you, but that's not really what they're particularly good at. Like them, Tarantino is a conceptual talent, an abstract pastiche pop-artist, and that's primarily how his films function.</i><br /><br />Because we're human, we tend to think that something that "moves" us is "deeper" than something that doesn't. We use <i>our</i> emotional responses to validate the art. What I say in the "chapter" on emotion is that I am moved by Tarantino's filmmaking, his way with images (and his recontextualizing of moments from other movies, such as "The Searchers") -- but, no, I have not felt much emotion for particular Tarantino characters (outside of "Jackie Brown") because I don't think they're really operating on an emotional level. Is that good or bad? No. It is what it is. But, again, I'd like to hear more details from anybody who was moved to tears by a particular scene or character in a Tarantino film, and what they were responding to.jim emersonhttp://blogs.suntimes.com/scannersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-38855781471296532682009-09-07T20:27:58.259-07:002009-09-07T20:27:58.259-07:00Magnificent piece, Chris! I'm so glad you bro...Magnificent piece, Chris! I'm so glad you brought up Tarantino's exploitation roots (he loves disreputable films and disreputable genres, largely because they get no respect) -- and the Nazi-sploitation stuff, in particular (something with which I'm laregly unfamiliar beyond "The Damned"!). <br /><br />I should point out, though, that I don't see any contradiction between comparing "Inglourious Basterds" to "Herr Meets Herr" (notice the pipe Bugs-as-Stalin smokes in the final shot) and taking the movie seriously. Nobody takes cartoons -- especially Warner Bros. Loony Tunes and Merrie Melodies! -- more seriously than I do, and in "IB" the Nazi top brass (Goebbels and Hitler) are presented as outlandish satirical cartoons. But that's just one dimension of the film. You describe the movie-movie universe of Tarantino's films beautifully -- including the wish-fulfillment that is so central to QT's movies (and movies in general). <br /><br />Also, when I characterize Tarantino's films as "abstract art," I'm not saying they are incapable of moving people. How could I say that? (As a voice in the crowd in Firesign Theater's "Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers" says: "That's metaphysically absurd, man.") I'm saying they do not conform to traditional notions of character development or storytelling of the sort that seeks to engage the audience on an emotional level with, say, ploys to make the characters seem more "sympathetic." That's not to say Tarantino's movies are not manipulative (they glory in cinematic manipulation -- suspense, surprise, etc.). But I think even some of his fans occasionally misread his films, making them seem more palatable, perhaps, by pretending they are more conventional moral tales than they really are.<br /><br />I'd love to know more about how you see Rachtman's death and the cinema finale. Do you think QT is trying to undercut the Basterds or Shoshanna's revenge, or create moral qualms in the audience, by "humanizing" (to use a horrible development-exec term) the Nazis?<br /><br />Again, congratulations on some really fine writing!jim emersonhttp://blogs.suntimes.com/scannersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-48134346882657804962009-09-04T15:43:07.463-07:002009-09-04T15:43:07.463-07:00There's been a lot of superb critical writing ...There's been a lot of superb critical writing about Inglourious Basterds; and I don't mean to slight any of the other authors and critics, but....<br /><br />Chris, I honestly think this is the definitive essay about the film so far, and one of the best works of criticism I've ever read. It's right up there with Greil Marcus' "Mystery Train". Great, great job, sir.JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-69517460875838769662009-09-04T13:57:21.631-07:002009-09-04T13:57:21.631-07:00And so you are clearly right about Tarantino's...And so you are clearly right about Tarantino's obvious love for people and the worlds they live in. How easy it is to dismiss him as having the inability to reflect life when you're not paying attention the films themselves.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-68174511476009066602009-09-04T13:47:03.733-07:002009-09-04T13:47:03.733-07:00This is spectacular writing, Chris, and an excelle...This is spectacular writing, Chris, and an excellent consideration of the movie in a manner that, frankly, astonishes me, even after having written about it all last week myself. You've really done a fine job of summarizing the ways in which this movie works, doesn't work, the accusations, the simple reality of what Tarantino has done here to craft a fully imagined universe on film. You've given me a lot MORE to think about, and I really appreciate that you've done it in such a confident, inquisitive, knowledgeable way without taking a smug tack that so many of the film's detractors do. So often I've argued with folks about this movie who lay down their complaints and ultimatums as a way of insisting that we proceed in thinking about Tarantino as if all the standard observations about his films-- they're hollow, self-serving, self-consuming, impregnable exercises in hermetic cinephilia-- are givens. I hope you don't mind if I just throw a chunk of what you've written up on my wall at <i>SLIFR</i> as a way of enticing readers, believers and nonbelievers alike, into taking on what you've laid down here. Superb job!Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-20170409614964489962009-09-04T02:56:07.015-07:002009-09-04T02:56:07.015-07:00Thanks, Ed. If anyone who stops by here hasn'...Thanks, Ed. If anyone who stops by here hasn't read the Bellamy/Howard back-and-forth on BASTERDS, you're missing one of the crucial early positive pieces of criticism on the film. If I have any major arguments, it's that I think Eli Roth is completely hilarious and note-perfect as Donny Donowitz. But I thought Tim Roth should've gotten an Oscar for FOUR ROOMS, so what do I know?<br /><br />I've always been frustrated, even alienated, by the way detractors and admirers alike frequently proceed from the assumption that Tarantino's work is both shallow and hollow, and that we all know this, even if they decide shallowness is a legitimate purpose unto itself. I get confused when critics write things like "[Tarantino's movies] are abstract art, not strong stories, not emotional experiences" (and that's Jim Emerson). It means that these people haven't cried at or been haunted by a Tarantino film, possibly not even been fully absorbed by the experience. Their loss, I suppose, but the received wisdom is the bedrock of most writing on the director.<br /><br />The common accusation that the artist shows no evidence of having lived in the real world with other human beings is kind of offensive but largely baffling. What I see pouring out of Tarantino's films is a great love for people, the arts, stories and life itself. His is a profoundly uncynical cinema; even the artifice is completely sincere. I'm looking at my DVD shelves, trying to think of another filmmaker more in love with people, their speech, their faces, their reasons, and the list is miniscule; Tarantino's films are just so jazzed about spending time with their characters (and his actors) that the screen is <i>crowded</i> with affection.<br /><br />That said, I feel fairly backed into a corner when trying to write on the director, when the films do a fine job of sticking up for themselves. I do think Tarantino aims for the fences every time out. He's playing the long game, and making films for an audience and discussion 20 years hence. The last two weeks have demonstrated that we're still not done grappling with RESERVOIR DOGS, let alone PULP FICTION.Chris Stanglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06300723935864517305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20081408.post-47180882297118994862009-09-03T06:55:17.829-07:002009-09-03T06:55:17.829-07:00Wow, what a fantastic piece, one of the best I'...Wow, what a fantastic piece, one of the best I've read about this film thus far -- and that's really saying something considering that <i>Inglourious Basterds</i> has prompted more serious, analytical discussion than perhaps any other film in recent memory.<br /><br />There's way too much here to respond to, but it sounds like you basically read the film the way I do (as elaborated <a href="http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2009/09/conversations-quentin-tarantino-part-2.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>), as this wonderful meta synthesis of The Movies, continuing Tarantino's ruminations on identity and genre and the ways in which pop culture reflects and resonates with "real life." It's Tarantino's masterpiece, no doubt about it, the film where all his obsessions and signature themes really come together, where it becomes impossible to ignore his seriousness, and the ways in which that seriousness is intimately connected with his silliness and irreverence. I especially love your observations about the narrative burrowing in the second chapter, the way a simple story keeps getting diverted and time-shifted and tied up in flashbacks and back story; Tarantino's intuitive feel for structure has reached its peak here, and the most stunning thing about it is that through all these diversions, the storytelling remains crystal-clear and razor-sharp.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.com