Topic: Inglourious Basterds (2009)

[Antares]

Inglourious Basterds





Year: 2009
Film Studio: The Weinstein Company, Universal Pictures, A Band Apart Productions
Genre: Action, Adventure, War
Length: 153 Min.

Director
Quentin Tarantino

Writing
Quentin Tarantino...Writer

Producer
Bob Weinstein (1954)
Harvey Weinstein (1952)
Erica Steinberg
Lloyd Phillips
Lawrence Bender (1957)

Cinematographer
Robert Richardson (1955)


Stars
Brad Pitt (1963) as LT. Aldo Raine
Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna
Christoph Waltz as COL. Hans Landa
Eli Roth as SGT. Donny Donowitz
Michael Fassbender (1977) as LT. Archie Hicox
Diane Kruger as Bridget von Hammersmark
Daniel Brühl as Fredrick Zoller
Til Schweiger as SGT. Hugo Stiglitz

Review
       A good film is manufactured similarly to a person’s home.  The screenplay is its foundation, with the acting, music and cinematography completing the construction. But if the foundation isn’t sound, the whole structure is surely to collapse. This is a lesson we all learn early in life through the tale of the three little pigs. And like the two pigs who built their home of straw and sticks, Quentin Tarantino has built a house of cards with his screenplay to Inglourious Basterds, and by simply taking away a trio of key plot contrivances in the story, the whole film comes a tumbling down. In the end, Inglourious Basterds is nothing more than an overrated director’s predictable attempt at keeping his rabid fanbase in an endless genuflection to his phantom talent.

       OK, where to begin? The opening scene, yes, that’s a good place to start. I had heard and read many glowing bits of praise concerning the first chapter in the film and I have to agree that it sets the stage quite nicely for the rest of the film. Although, if you can spot the first plot contrivance, the scene loses some of its luster and here is where I found fault with it. Let’s start with the tired and getting extremely old, “I really love Sergio Leone, so here’s some more ‘homage’ing to his genius” crap. Let’s see, you did it in Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill I & II, we get it already, please move on! Second, if you’re going to use a bit of cinematographic imagery to convey the meaning of Landa’s allegory, then you shouldn’t let said imagery, destroy the premise of the scene. At one point, when the farmer and Colonel Landa are sitting in the farmhouse, the Sun shines down through a window and down onto the floorboards, where the light beams between the boards and into the eyes of the frightened Jews beneath them. If Colonel Landa is such a meticulous master of his craft at hunting down hidden Jews, how does he not see through the ½ inch gap between each floorboard at the now illuminated quarry which he seeks? Third, instead of having his soldiers find the entrance to the crawl space and apprehending the Jewish family, Quentin decides to placate his now ‘frothing at the mouth for violence’ fanboys by having the soldiers make Swiss cheese of the floorboards with their machine guns.

       But what’s this? One of the Jews is trying to escape. It’s the daughter Shoshanna, and she’s made her getaway through the entrance to the crawl space and is frantically scurrying across the open farm field so she may survive the massacre. Colonel Landa pulls his luger from its holster and points the weapon at the fleeing girl, but then decides not to shoot her, instead he tauntingly exclaims, “au revoir Shoshanna”, and the scene ends. Why? Are Landa and his men suffering from plantar fasciitus and it’s too painful to run after her? Maybe they’ve forgotten how to drive a troop transport in the brief moment since their arrival, which they could easily use to track her down. No, it’s simple and it’s plot contrivance #1, if they kill her or capture her, chapters 3 & 5 in the film are no longer feasible. Having pulled the first card out of the house’s foundation, it is still strong and standing. But any further tampering may lead to disastrous results.

       In chapter 2, we meet the ‘basterds’. They are led by Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), a hard-nosed, no nonsense brute of a fighter who really, I mean REALLY hates Nazis. He has been assigned by the OSS to select a group of commandos, who just like him, really, I mean REALLY hate Nazis too. During the briefing with his men, we soon find out that all the commandos are Jewish, a sort of gefilte grenadiers squad, who must prove their bravery by each obtaining 100 Nazi scalps. In the ensuing scene, which takes place deep behind enemy lines just prior to the Normandy invasion, we find out that Aldo ain’t kidding about the scalps. While Aldo is interrogating three captured German soldiers, the rest of the group is shown slicing their macabre souvenirs from the surrounding dead soldier’s heads. Shocking you say? Well…old Quentin is just getting started. When the German officer refuses to divulge the whereabouts of another German patrol located somewhere in the vicinity, Aldo asks him if he has heard of the basterds. The officer elaborates that the German army knows of this commando squad and its reputation for brutality. I’ve underlined this passage because it will be important to plot contrivance #2. Aldo then asks him if he has heard of the ‘Bear Jew’, a soldier who takes great pleasure in smashing Nazis with a baseball bat. Once again, the officer replies in the affirmative, yet still refuses to cooperate.

       Enter stage left, Eli Roth, sporting his Louisville slugger and proceeds to bash the bosch into oblivion. Seeing this, one of the other two prisoners makes a run for it and is shot. The remaining prisoner is shaking in his boots and after Aldo assures him that he will go free if he tells him where the patrol is, he divulges their whereabouts. True to his word, Aldo lets him go, but first he leaves him with a special Nazi ‘badge’ of honor. According to Aldo, to put the fear of God and the basterds into the Germans, he carves a swastika into the soldier’s forehead. Ding, Ding, Ding…if you guessed that this was plot contrivance #2, you would be right! Now follow me here… If the Germans already know of the basterds and their brutal beating and scalping of German soldiers (Remember, I underlined that above), then why does he need to ‘brand’ this soldier to put forth the message? I mean, if all Aldo wants is Nazi scalps, why would he let this one go? It makes no sense at all, he’d alert the Gestapo and they’d be there in a moment’s notice. The prisoner knows the names of a few of them, he knows how many basterds there are, and he knows their general location. Well, if he doesn’t let him go, our genius screenwriter will lose another key plot moment in chapter five, the swastika scar. This is the second card removed and the house is teetering on the brink.

       I could go on and on and on, but it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. So to counter my objections so far with the film, I’ll take a moment to extol the limited, and I do mean limited amount of good things in Inglourious Basterds. To begin with, Christopher Waltz is very good as the ruthless Colonel Landa, although for a few moments in the opening scene, I felt as if his mannerisms reminded me of Alvy Singer. Maybe it’s just a quirk of his portrayal, but at least it disappeared after the first scene. Waltz is definitely the glue that holds this patchwork of a screenplay together, and without him, the house of cards comes crashing down. Next, there are two moments in the film that are purely fantastic cinematic technique. The first comes in chapter 3 when Colonel Landa is interviewing Shoshanna, who owns the theater where the blood bacchanal will take place in chapter 5. As he questions her, he extols the virtues of the café’s version of apple strudel, the national dessert of Germany. He continues his questioning while consuming his portion. When the questioning is over, he puts his half smoked cigarette out in the middle of the unfinished strudel. A brilliant metaphorical moment that is not only a harbinger of the holocaust that’s going to take place in the theater, but also subliminally sets the stage for Landa’s actions during that climactic moment in the film.

       The second moment in the film that I thought was outstanding was in the bacchanal scene I mentioned a moment ago. As the final reel of A Nation’s Pride is playing, Shoshanna’s assistant, waiting for a cue in the film that Shoshanna has spliced in, tosses his cigarette on to a heaping pile of old nitrate film stock. Being highly flammable, the film stock erupts in a torrent of ambitiously hungry flames at the base of the screen.

(click to show/hide)

On the screen at that moment is the face of Shoshanna, laughing at the Germans she’s about to send to Hell, in the same manner as they have used to dispose of the bodies of the innocent souls they have murdered.

Once again, I must say, absolutely brilliant! Unfortunately, this outstanding moment of movie magic, is surrounded by probably the most improbable and gratuitous moments in film history. For Christ’s sake Quentin, don’t you think that if Hitler, Goebbels, Göring and the rest of the Nazi hierarchy were in attendance, there would be more than just TWO guards posted in the theater? But there is an easy explanation for this moment of absurdity, and it is plot contrivance #3. If there are guards posted at every door, then Marcel, Shoshanna’s Senegalese assistant, would not be able to secure the exits and prevent the Germans from escaping the theater and their ultimate demise. And that my friends is one card too many to remove, the structure has been weakened to the point that the whole screenplay has coming crashing down, leaving a mass of trite rubble in its wake.

       What a shame, this film had such potential. And I’m not being facetious. If Tarantino had the courage to make a film using just the struggle between the Landa and Shoshanna characters, and omitting the basterds, it could have been a masterpiece. Unfortunately for the movie-going public at large, Quentin is a coward, and must placate his fanbase by his now quite tired over-indulgence in bloodletting, comic book characterizations and self-gratifying expressionism. At the end of the film, Aldo’s final line, spoken as he looks into the camera at the audience as he carves his final badge of dishonor, “This just might be my masterpiece”, speaks volumes to the pretentiousness and self-stroking egotistical nature of a director whose work has steadily ebbed since the high tide of his Pulp Fiction days.


Ratings Criterion
5 Stars - The pinnacle of film perfection and excellence.
4 ½ Stars - Not quite an immortal film, yet a masterpiece in its own right.
4 Stars - Historically important film, considered a classic.
3 ½ Stars - An entertaining film that’s fun or engaging to watch.
3 Stars – A good film that’s worth a Netflix venture.
2 ½ Stars - Borderline viewable.
2 Stars – A bad film that may have a moment of interest.
1 ½ Stars – Insipid, trite and sophomoric, and that's its good points.
1 Star – A film so vacuous, it will suck 2 hours from the remainder of your life.
½ Star - A gangrenous and festering pustule in the chronicles of celluloid.

[Achim]

The descriptions of the faults shows me that you were clearly looking for them. What you call contrivance is something that is inherent in almost every film.

On the first scene: The gap is not literally 1/2" or more, it only appears that wide to us so that the film can show us the location of the Jews, it's a technicality. When one is looking for faults, they may stike them as such. Landa doesn't need to see through the gap, he is entirely aware that the Jews are there. He is not in doubt for one second, but he enjoys playing his game with the farmer, trying to get him to reveal the truth by himself. I can see however how not shooting Shosanna may be seen as a "too-simple" a plot device.

Why does Aldo let the German go? A) because he gave his word and B) to spread fear. Knowing of the Basterds is one thing, but hearing a first-hand account will increase the fear it puts into the German soldiers.


You don't like Tarantino and I respect that. But as strongly as your faults are based on small-ish plot devices it tells me that you were looking for them. Nothing wrong with that either, just an observation. Seems you are on the other end of this forum's spectrum than Pete. Pete is very forgiving to the worst of films and when he gives a low rating it sure must be a strinker (there are exceptions... ) whereas you seem to be rather tough inyour judgements. Again, nothing wrong here, just my observation.


I do get your suggestion that the Basterds hurt the film and I at least agree that leaving them out or at least presenting them differently may have changed the film positively.

I mentioned it in another threas, but I found myself having a problem the other trying to write a review foloowing notes. It's what actually make you go into too much details and loose track of the overall film.

[Najemikon]

I agree entirely with Achim and I'm glad he replied first, because I doubt I could have put it so well.

First of all, accusing him of ripping off other movies is so old now. Every modern director is stealing from someone; Scorcese even demonstrated it in his marvellous documentary. He called it "smuggling" and proved it's a key element from the beginning of the medium.

The fact is, anyone can copy, but it still takes skill to build the scene correctly. And the skill of that scene is in the transferring of emotion, which is just sublime.

I'm sorry, but I really can't agree with anything in your breakdown of the opening scene. Achim already said about the gap, plus Lando just playing with the farmer, etc. Additionally, he doesn't chase her because he can't be bothered. Would you chase a "rat"? No, you just want it out of your way.

I also take exception to your remark about slavering fanboys demanding violence. His understanding of screen violence has always been excellent. Would you make such sweeping dismissals of Peckinpah? You should listen to his explanation of the torture scene in Dogs too; his manipulation of the viewer is not pandering to ultra-violence.

I am glad you saw how well the restaurant scene was built at least and also the imagery of the concluding scene, which I just adored.

Overall, you have come to a similar conclusion to Mark Kermode who was frustrated at what he saw as squandering a natural talent. I do sort of agree. With both Kill Bills and this, he has moved away from the lean writing of Jackie Brown, which may stand one day as his finest film.

But for now I think Kermode and your good self are missing that this is clearly Tarantino's comic book phase. The structure of his last three films is just like the visual assault from a good comic, plus the random nature of the screenplay, with his love of chapters. It's the fact he has embraced this style and still observed traditional film conventions that make him one of the most important film-makers working today, considering every other mainstream director is going for 3d this, cgi that on everything. If he falls into the trap of thinking this is the only style audiences want, he will quickly run out of steam, but I expect he will prove to be more versatile. And if he doesn't, so long as I enjoy it, I don't really care!

[Antares]

First of all, accusing him of ripping off other movies is so old now.

I must be missing something Jon, where did I accuse him of ripping off other movies? By stating that he's stuck in an endless Leone money shot? Please Jon, you have to admit, it's getting very, very old.

Additionally, he doesn't chase her because he can't be bothered. Would you chase a "rat"? No, you just want it out of your way.

Now Jon, you're clutching at straws to defend his screenplay. For Christ's sake, she's not an amalgamation of Muhammad Ali, Carl Lewis and John Rambo. It's not as if she's about to jump into a machine guns nest and give them a fight.

Would you make such sweeping dismissals of Peckinpah?

Actually, when looking at some of his later films, yes.

I also take exception to your remark about slavering fanboys demanding violence. His understanding of screen violence has always been excellent.; his manipulation of the viewer is not pandering to ultra-violence.

Really? Then why hasn't he made a film yet that doesn't contain gratuitous violence? Yes, his understanding of screen violence is excellent, it's his bread & butter. Without it, he'd starve.

But for now I think Kermode and your good self are missing that this is clearly Tarantino's comic book phase.

I'm not missing it, I understand it's his mission to secure for his legacy, a sort of Roger Corman/George Romero kind of status among film lovers and historians. Unfortunately, he doesn't understand that those two directors made their reputations on films with shoestring budgets, not major Hollywood financing.

considering every other mainstream director is going for 3d this, cgi that on everything.

P.T. Anderson?(Who's in a league far above Tarantino) Joel & Ethan Coen? Pedro Almodóvar? Wes Anderson? Jean-Pierre Jeunet? David Fincher?(and if you mention Benjamin Button, I'll lose all respect for you) 

If he falls into the trap of thinking this is the only style audiences want, he will quickly run out of steam, but I expect he will prove to be more versatile.

You may be right, but one thing I've learned in my 40+ years of film appreciation is that very few fans like to admit they were wrong in their assessment of the films and the film makers they loved and grew up with. They'd rather keep their heroes on the higher pedestal they built for them. And to that end, they'll support whatever they release. Does the name George Lucas ring a bell?

[Najemikon]

First of all, accusing him of ripping off other movies is so old now.

I must be missing something Jon, where did I accuse him of ripping off other movies? By stating that he's stuck in an endless Leone money shot? Please Jon, you have to admit, it's getting very, very old.

I admit nothing! As I keep saying, and I mean it sincerely, to copy is one thing, to be inspired and successfully navigate a very difficult scene takes genuine skill. You say you admired the restaurant scene, but he isn't copying anyone there. And I adore the Leone movies, so I get a kick out of anyone successfully using his style. Hold on... no, no-one else has. However "homages" or whatever you want to call it are happening all the time. It's just Tarantino unfortunately chooses to be inspired by one of the most recognisable directors ever. Sticks out like a sore thumb. Except, I love it!

Additionally, he doesn't chase her because he can't be bothered. Would you chase a "rat"? No, you just want it out of your way.

Now Jon, you're clutching at straws to defend his screenplay. For Christ's sake, she's not an amalgamation of Muhammad Ali, Carl Lewis and John Rambo. It's not as if she's about to jump into a machine guns nest and give them a fight.

If you read that as me insinuating they thought she was a threat then you're mistaken. I mean, simply, that to them she is nothing. Less than nothing. And that nothing is incapable of surviving so it will eventually get wiped out anyway. Why bother wasting time? Like a cat, efficiently dealing with nearby rodents, but being lazy and smug the rest of the time. I feel no need to clutch at straws; it merely is what it is and for It is the ending of a perfect scene, a passionate, desperate bid for freedom from an enemy so powerful it has reduced her to less than human and can't be bothered to finish the job.

Would you make such sweeping dismissals of Peckinpah?

Actually, when looking at some of his later films, yes.

Ok, Wild Bunch? The Getaway? Straw Dogs? They're what I'm considering specifically.

I also take exception to your remark about slavering fanboys demanding violence. His understanding of screen violence has always been excellent.; his manipulation of the viewer is not pandering to ultra-violence.

Really? Then why hasn't he made a film yet that doesn't contain gratuitous violence? Yes, his understanding of screen violence is excellent, it's his bread & butter. Without it, he'd starve.

I wouldn't call Jackie Brown gratuitous. And honestly I believe he has the stones to produce anything above average without resorting to his bread and butter. Look how keen he was to do a Bond, which simply could not have contained anything so gratuitous. And his work on CSi was superb and the majority of that was simple character scenes, which he gave great vitality to. Heck if Robert Rodriguez can make a decent stab at a kids film, I'm sure QT could. I always have a sense that he knows instinctively knows how to match a film to it's audience and vice versa.

But for now I think Kermode and your good self are missing that this is clearly Tarantino's comic book phase.

I'm not missing it, I understand it's his mission to secure for his legacy, a sort of Roger Corman/George Romero kind of status among film lovers and historians. Unfortunately, he doesn't understand that those two directors made their reputations on films with shoestring budgets, not major Hollywood financing.

Oh, of course he understands it! He knows exactly what he is doing. It's one of the things I enjoy about his work, because he takes stories made famous by the exploitation genre and gives them... I hate to say it, but an edge of quality. I don't want to piss off Jimmy by insulting one of his favourite genres, but I find the bulk of the real Grindhouse material absolutely unwatchable. Point of fact, Pam Grier as Jackie Brown is one of my favourite female performances. Now he wanted to use her because of cult "classics" like Foxy Brown and Coffy, so I was inspired to look them up. IMO, they're junk. He gave her a part in which she blossomed and he photographed her better then she had been before. That is the mark of a truly skilled director, manipulating his obvious love for a cult genre and making it palatable for a wide audience.

Contrary to my previous statement though, Romero and Corman aren't the best examples because I like their stuff!  

considering every other mainstream director is going for 3d this, cgi that on everything.

P.T. Anderson?(Who's in a league far above Tarantino) Joel & Ethan Coen? Pedro Almodóvar? Wes Anderson? Jean-Pierre Jeunet? David Fincher?(and if you mention Benjamin Button, I'll lose all respect for you)  

That's why I specified mainstream. I don't agree P.T. is in a league above. There Will Be Blood aside, I find him overrated and bloated, especially Boogie Nights (which by the way, to me blatantly apes Scorcese. What's good for the gander, eh?). Fincher made one of my favourite thrillers in Se7en, but again, overrated and repetitive. The Coen's and Wes Anderson are great examples, but it's a shame they'd rarely made a fraction of Tarantino's box office (A Serious Man went straight to DVD in this country, despite such recent success). No, I mean Tarantino is able to hold his own, albeit briefly, against blockbuster material. Directors like the Wachowski's or James Cameron.

If he falls into the trap of thinking this is the only style audiences want, he will quickly run out of steam, but I expect he will prove to be more versatile.

You may be right, but one thing I've learned in my 40+ years of film appreciation is that very few fans like to admit they were wrong in their assessment of the films and the film makers they loved and grew up with. They'd rather keep their heroes on the higher pedestal they built for them. And to that end, they'll support whatever they release. Does the name George Lucas ring a bell?

Ok, two points: whatever he goes on to do, it will not invalidate his current body of work. I enjoy it now, I expect I always will. Which brings me to my second point: in my experience, people who truly appreciate and understand film are not so blinkered as unable to put films into context. You mention Lucas? What a dreadful example! He is on no pedestal after the prequel disasters, and to a lesser extent (simply because I loved it!) the fourth Indiana Jones.

But I suppose I can assume from you picking him, you mean the Star Wars original trilogy hero worship? Perhaps you are in the camp that all the Star Wars films are equal and that those of us who hate the prequels have been blinded by our childhood memories? Well I consider myself very self-aware of my tastes. When I liked Star Wars, I also thought Police Academy was the best comedy ever. That changed. I am also very confident in why the trilogies are so different and have already discussed elsewhere. Apologies if I misunderstood, but there's a relevant point in there somewhere!  

[Jimmy]

I'm not missing it, I understand it's his mission to secure for his legacy, a sort of Roger Corman/George Romero kind of status among film lovers and historians.

Please don't compare him to Roger Corman, he doesn't have 1% of the talent of Roger Corman....

[Jimmy]

I don't want to piss off Jimmy by insulting one of his favourite genres, but I find the bulk of the real Grindhouse material absolutely unwatchable.

As I've said previously how many of them have you seen? It's easy to dismiss something without checking it first¹ and if for you the best era of the american film productions is unwatchable they're nothing I can say...

By the way grindhouse is a term who means absolutly nothing like torture porn, it's just the unofficial name of the 42nd street in New-York at the time. I watch sexploitation, roughies, white coat documentary, seventies hardcore, italian seventies and drive-in classic. Alll of them can be simply pack together with the term "independant films made in the sixties and seventies", not the crappy term grindhouse.

1. see Sophie I use your argument

[Antares]

I'm not missing it, I understand it's his mission to secure for his legacy, a sort of Roger Corman/George Romero kind of status among film lovers and historians.

Please don't compare him to Roger Corman, he doesn't have 1% of the talent of Roger Corman....

Sorry, but it was the only way to get my point across. 

It's what he wants so badly.

[Najemikon]

I don't want to piss off Jimmy by insulting one of his favourite genres, but I find the bulk of the real Grindhouse material absolutely unwatchable.

As I've said previously how many of them have you seen? It's easy to dismiss something without checking it first¹ and if for you the best era of the american film productions is unwatchable they're nothing I can say...

By the way grindhouse is a term who means absolutly nothing like torture porn, it's just the unofficial name of the 42nd street in New-York at the time. I watch sexploitation, roughies, white coat documentary, seventies hardcore, italian seventies and drive-in classic. Alll of them can be simply pack together with the term "independant films made in the sixties and seventies", not the crappy term grindhouse.

1. see Sophie I use your argument

No, I do realise the versatility and I certainly haven't seen many, but as you yourself said elsewhere, informed decisions can be made from trailers. I always follow your threads, Jimmy, because you write great reviews and I'll consider anything, but in the end, only a couple caught my attention as ones I'd like to see. And call me a snob if you like, but when the sound is so bad I feel like I'm going to get a nosebleed, I'd rather watch Casablanca again!

I like some Corman films and Romero for definite, but because it was on TV the other night, I just recently tried once more to watch a Russ Meyer. To be honest, I can't quite remember which one it was... Beyond The Valley of The Dolls, I think. I just found it awful. I can appreciate it's appeal, but... urgh! No. Not for me!

And as I said before, Pam Grier in both Coffy and Foxy Brown. I felt they were very important films because they helped break Hollywood's racism to some degree, but I don't think they are actually aesthetically very good. Great plots, but just distastefully delivered. Pam may have been breaking prejudices on one side, but the scenes contrived to get her topless merely enforced another.

I'd love to see Tarantino remake Coffy...  

[Antares]

Jon,

I could respond to every one of the points you have made, but  it would be fruitless. I'm never, ever going to sway you in your fascination with him, and you're never going to sway me. That is, until he releases something completely original and not targeting his mainstream demographic of young males between the ages of 15 - 30 year old males.

But I will ask you this question.

If you were to take this screenplay and make it with the same actors, in the same way as Tarantino has done, but instead of affixing Tarantino's name to it, you add say... David Lynch. Another director known for work that pushes the boundaries. Do you think, it too, would have been nominated for all these awards and received this kind of praise from the critics?

[Antares]

I'd love to see Tarantino remake Coffy...  

DUCK EVERYBODY!!!!!

[Jimmy]

No, I do realise the versatility and I certainly haven't seen many, but as you yourself said elsewhere, informed decisions can be made from trailers.

I've told it about the recent film trailers, not the sixties and seventies trailers... The old trailers are not the same at all than the new one who gives the best part of a movie.  

Jon, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls isn't the best way to start watching Meyer. But if you want to give him a real chance try Vixen, Supervixen, Faster Pussycat... Kill! Kill!, Common Law Cabin or Good Morning... and Goodbye!

[Najemikon]

I've told it about the recent film trailers, not the sixties and seventies trailers... The old trailers are not the same at all than the new one who gives the best part of a movie. 

Jon, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls isn't the best way to start watching Meyer. But if you want to give him a real chance try Vixen, Supervixen, Faster Pussycat... Kill! Kill!, Common Law Cabin or Good Morning... and Goodbye!

Would the inevitable conclusion be trying to watch Dolls again?  I know what you mean about trailers, but still, they are supposed to inspire you to see the movie and they really don't. Thanks for the mentions though, I will bear them in mind.

I could respond to every one of the points you have made, but  it would be fruitless. I'm never, ever going to sway you in your fascination with him, and you're never going to sway me. That is, until he releases something completely original and not targeting his mainstream demographic of young males between the ages of 15 - 30 year old males.

It is stalemate, though I wouldn't go so far as to say fascinated! It's just I enjoy his films, I go into them half knowing what I'm going to get, with an air of optimism. You on the other hand also half know what you're going to get, but probably have more of a sense of dread! As Achim said, it makes it rather hard to focus.

It reminds me of my Film Studies AS exam. Questions had resulted in essays written on the narrative and genre of The Ladykillers, and the mise en scene of Citizen Kane, then the social context of Billy Liar and Saturday Night Sunday Morning. All would turn out to be reasonably scored. Good job because I blew the last one! I can't remember the exact question, but it involved My Beautiful Laundrette. Oh god, I detest that film! I ended up writing what was probably an entertaining essay on just why it was so shit. Quite rightly, it scored zip. I couldn't find something good about that film if my life depended on it! I think they were looking for a balanced opinion.

But where would we be if we didn't believe in our convictions?  

But I will ask you this question.

If you were to take this screenplay and make it with the same actors, in the same way as Tarantino has done, but instead of affixing Tarantino's name to it, you add say... David Lynch. Another director known for work that pushes the boundaries. Do you think, it too, would have been nominated for all these awards and received this kind of praise from the critics?

That's a loaded question!   The director's name in such films brings so much baggage. If it was Lynch, critics would probably be very confused by it and it would fall by the wayside. Audiences though would probably reward him with a runaway hit! I suppose the most balanced reviewers would say not one for Lynch fans, but damn good fun. Still we have to accept awards are often contrived so I couldn't see Lynch being rewarded for it.

Of the directors you mentioned earlier, I think the Coen's could have got away with making it the same way and would have received masses of praise and awards. Critics would have seen irony in it and the Basterds as the ultimate version of their "idiot" films. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'd like to see their take on it!

What about if it had come out of nowhere with a director who had no recognisable form, or at least a reputation for being fairly conventional? I think if someone like Bryan Singer did it, he'd be congratulated, rewarded, but everyone would be so shocked, he'd never work again! Michael Powell, Peeping Tom style...

[Antares]

What about if it had come out of nowhere with a director who had no recognisable form, or at least a reputation for being fairly conventional? I think if someone like Bryan Singer did it, he'd be congratulated, rewarded, but everyone would be so shocked, he'd never work again! Michael Powell, Peeping Tom style...

I definitely agree with that! Love the Michael Powell reference.

[Kathy]

I don't know why but reading Jon and Antares reminds me of watching the Mohammad Ali and Joe Foreman go 12 rounds.

For those of you too young to remember they were two extremely talented boxers. They were so different and yet they matched up perfectly. To watch them was artistry in motion.