2009 saw Quentin Tarantino's latest film Inglourious Basterds meet not so much lukewarm reviews as bipolar ones. Flicking through the papers and websites at the time, you would find five stars and one stars but not many threes or fours.
Many of the poor reviews suggested that Tarantino has "lost it" since the very weak Death Proof. Others go further and say that anything post-Jackie Brown (i.e. Kill Bill) is not worth the DVD it's burnt on.
Yet with all the criticism Inglourious Basterds has been nominated for eight Academy Awards. One may also note that the general public seem to have a more favourable opinion of it; on IMDb at this moment it has 8.4/10, and it is the director's biggest grossing film ever. Has the zeitgeist shifted? Will Basterds be remembered as a brilliant movie in years to come, or a mediocre one as its average critic ratings would suggest?
A "masterpiece"?
Personally, I hope that it will be remembered as the former. It will only win one of the eight nominations which Christoph Waltz will duly receive for Best Supporting Actor.* The film does deserve more, yet the Oscars are as much about movie politics as they are about the movies themselves and for this reason it won't. I think it is Tarantino's finest work since Pulp Fiction which is what blew him into the stratosphere and made him arguably, the most famous director in the world. In order for me to defend this position we need to rewind back to Kill Bill, which is possibly more esoteric.Kill Bill is a great starting point to defend Tarantino because it is the most emphatic of his films. Whereas before we saw films that are set in the "real world", this theme peaking with Jackie Brown, Kill Bill pitted the "real world" against the "movie world" and thus revealed the contrasting qualities, usually with hilarious effect.
The story surrounds an ex-assassin who wishes to live a normal life. In each scene surrounding the Bride's wished "normal life" such as the wedding rehearsal scene or when she is taking the pregnancy test everything is very naturalistic and set in the "real world". However, as soon as a confrontation breaks out or she is on her mission to get revenge the tone flips completely into the ridiculousness of movie fiction. Characters start jumping on swords, geysering blood and speaking overly dramatic, sometimes cheesy, lines; occasionally directly to the camera. Most definitive of this "movie world" is the opening scene of Volume 2 when the Bride explicitly mentions that she is on "what the movie advertisements would call 'A roaring rampage of revenge.'"
"I roared," she continues, "and I rampaged!" With that particular scene in mind it strikes me as quite odd how so many people, critics included, watched Kill Bill and did not understand that it was hugely mocking, overblown and tongue in cheek. How anyone can listen to a speech about a "five-point-palm-heart-exploding-technique" and then come out of the cinema informing us all that it would be impossible to punch your way out of a buried coffin astounds me! In fact when people tell me this not only do I hear giant "whoosh" noises as the whole theme and message of the film flew over their heads but I also ponder whether they ever feel the need to escape the real world we live in. Do they realise that films play a lot with reality, and usually to a far less noticeable degree? Which is the whole point of Kill Bill, or at least one of the points. It is exaggerating this poetic licence used time and time again by the film industry for comic effect and for the viewer to appreciate that there is no such thing remotely like the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad out there. So why not embrace the romanticism of it that only fiction allows you to do.
Anyone who has seen Inglourious Basterds will have no doubt predicted the correlation. Now, I will not spoil it for those of you who haven't but let us just say that it came as no surprise that the critics who had a problem with Basterds did so quite significantly because of its treatment of history. Once again, must everything be stone heartedly accurate? There have a been thousands upon thousands of World War II movies over the past half century and most of them are, or at least try to be, historically accurate and realistic. Do we need another one of them? It was obvious that Basterds was not going to be similar in tone and perspective to Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List from the outset. But it was just as good, in fact maybe better. Ultimately, movies are ways of telling stories and if you can, why not tell the most satisfying, uplifting World War II story? What is the problem in that?
I realise that the fantasy elements of Tarantino's movies are not the sole issue many have with them. For example, one criticism that I can sympathise with is that his characters all sound very much the same. They have long, preachy monologues and pop culture stuffed dialogues. However, I think it is unfair to then extrapolate this criticism to say that they have no individuality. For each of them have their own characteristics despite all having a "Tarantino moment". The SS "detective", Hans Lander is an incredibly well rounded and unique character as is The Bride and Bill. In fact these characters are all more fulfilled than any of those in Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
Furthermore, people forget the quiet characters in Tarantino's films. Shosanna, Butch (Bruce Willis in Pulp Fiction) and Louis (Robert De Niro in Jackie Brown) are all main characters that never start expelling their familiar sermons. What is more is that they still remain believable, individual personas.
Even with all that aside, so what if all of his films have lengthy monologues? So do the plays of Shakespeare, does that detract from the characters' individuality? No, of couse not, yet many of the monologues ride upon similar themes. Besides, those sections of speech have become Tarantino's trademark, one that is as recognisable as Sergio Leone's close up shot, and a trademark I welcome in an era where Michael Bay style CGI snoozefests are all too common.
I think it is not being too outlandish to say that this all boils down to one thing: people love to be ahead of the curve, they love to look smart by recommending things people have never heard of. From restaurants, to movies this is true. Which is good, new ideas spread because of this, however it also fuels snobbery. Everyone had the guy at school who around the age of fourteen began to dislike whatever music it was cool to love at that time. He would try placing himself on an all new level of coolness by snorting at what the other immature, unintelligent sheep liked.
Well some people do that now. Before anyone knew who Quentin Tarantino was people would love to recommend his films glazing him in ravishing reviews, saying that he is the new Stanley Kubrick and so on. Now, that man is famous and considered by many as a very fine filmmaker. So, many of those same people would now like to (mis)inform us that he has lost it and has become self-indulgent and simply creates pastiches. Well don't listen to them, Tarantino is cool, has always been cool and probably always will be...with the minor exception of Death Proof. That was awful!
*My Oscar predictions coming soon!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment