Chicks On Fire

Entries categorized as ‘Directors’

Inglourious Basterds: nigh time for a Jewish revenge fantasy

September 7, 2009 · Leave a Comment

shoshanna
My name is Shoshanna Dreyfus… and you’ve seen the face of Jewish vengeance. – Shoshanna Dreyfus

Chris Rock, a politically incorrect comedian with little regards for niceties, once defended the use of a derogatory term for its function of striking the perpetrator where it would hurt the most. I don’t condone violent means of communication, and I don’t think there’s justice in vengeance. I do, however, believe that the desire for justice by violent means is a natural, human, deep seated emotional reaction to a great perceived injury. We are as much the communal rats as we are the killer hawks – our aggression may be channeled through less murderous venues, but it is not a disease to be cured. The high road can only carry us so far before we become completely removed from one of the most impassioned, naked, and organic parts of ourselves. Obviously we can’t have people going around wreaking vengeance however they see fit; eye for an eye makes the world blind, right? We count on our justice system and sometimes karma to give us some closures, but the business of come-uppance isn’t satisfaction-guaranteed. However, what we may not be able to get through non-fiction, we may still be able to get through our fiction, in this case, cinema. That’s where Inglourious Basterds (Tarantino, 2009) came in: delivering the Jewish anger upon those who were most responsible for the great injury. Quentin Tarantino made sure that everyone knew it was a gift born of love for cinema and desire for a good story, and in his good story, come-uppance came with a bloody satisfaction-guaranteed seal.

Although the basterds carried the title of the film, it was equally (if not more) the story of Shoshanna Dreyfus as the Jew survivor cum theatre owner and film lover. After a very intense and thoroughly terrifying opener (uncharacteristically of a serious nature), Tarantino’s latest mash up began its twisted journey with the scene of Shoshanna running for her life, scared, hurt, but determined. The Jews from then on escaped victimhood and proudly proclaimed their stake in a deathly tango with the Nazis. The picture glided along by conversations as much as actions, though discussions of cinematic details may interest only the handful of film enthusiasts in the audience taking delights in seeing recreations of famous spaghetti cinema bits (e.g. The Searchers door). Nevertheless, with Brad Pitt leading the pack of charming cast, Basterds should have no trouble entertaining its mass audience – I should know, having seen it separately with a North American and a French audience, and seeing it equally embraced by both.

As far as vengeance and spaghetti escape films go, the film was unusually weighty, even with its exaggerated effects and humour. The sensitivity surrounding the subject may deter the production of a Jewish revenge fantasy, despite it being such a great premise for a revenge film (great real world injustice with clear baddies and no satisfying resolution or absolution is as ripe as it gets). Perhaps such a story may have needed a removed but interested storyteller, who would treat it with equal giddiness and respect, brusque and sophistication, and a clear grasp on the power of stories to create and recreate. Tarantino, the filmmaker known for synthesis and meta-reference, may just have been the director of choice for such a feat, and he delivered Basterds with much aplomb. Its status as his masterpiece (as he referred to it twice in the film) may be debatable, but the brilliant ending of Basterds had to be one of the most insane, layered and perfectly appropriate sequences committed to film.

Basterds was not for the squeamish or the bleeding heart – there was a scene involving the Bear Jew and a Nazi sergeant that was reminiscent of the gang beating in A Clockwork Orange. Coming from a director who loves women, as indicated by his previous films, it was also a bit surprising to see what happened to the women in this film. Yet, the objectives were clearly far from invoking the most outrage from the audience. I can just imagine Tarantino explaining his film in his usual nerdy excited manner: “it’s a film about hate, alright? But there’s love too, alright? My great, great love, cinema, is used to redress a great act of hate that had no street justice ending. But it’s not going to be nice; it’s going to be thrilling and fun, but also dirty and over the top and emotionally honest. You’re going to enjoy it.” And there are plenty of things to enjoy, unless, of course, you are squeamish or in possession of a serious bleeding heart. Everyone involved on screen seemed to relish the opportunity to flesh out their at once cartoonish and memorable character. If even Diane Kruger could seem interested in her role as the double agent Bridget von Hammersmark, you know this id-driven avenger could not be denied.

Categories: Aurelle · Directors · Film · Quentin Tarantino
Tagged: , ,

The Miscalculations of There Will Be Blood

January 14, 2008 · 2 Comments

First, let me make it perfectly clear that I adore Paul Thomas Anderson. I think he’s a terrific director, and a hot one to boot. I have at least liked all of his features so far (minus Hard Eight, which I still haven’t seen). And the man really has the eyes for actors: they tend to deliver some of their best works in his pictures (e. g. Tom Cruise in Magnolia, Julianne Moore and Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights). Given the length of time since his last picture and the amount of breathless adulation thrown at There Will Be Blood (2007), I came out of it rather puzzled with my lack of feelings. I would normally be awash with emotions coming out of an Anderson picture. Instead, ambivalence marked the end of the film and I was not sure if it was an Anderson picture at all.

My remark was “well, that seemed like a mature film for him.” What I probably meant was “who the hell did that?” and then, “who did Paul Dano think he was?” It was not that Dano did a horrible job. In fact, he was rather brave in taking on an overpowering Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis). Unfortunately, he was no match for Lewis in presence (though, in over-the-top acting, perhaps they were evenly matched when on screen together), and the picture quickly became an overwhelmingly one-sided one-man show.

(more…)

Categories: Aurelle · Directors · Film · P. T. Anderson

No Country for Old Men: A Summary In 3 Quotes

November 12, 2007 · 23 Comments

No Country for Old Men

As No Country for Old Men, the Coen brothers’ latest film, rolled out in North America this week, there would surely be some head scratching by the time the film was over. I’d argue that everything you needed to know about the film was right there in the film, specifically in Ed Tom Bell’s (Tommy Lee Jones) speeches. Here, I’ll summarize the film with three quotes taken directly from the film. SPOILERS ALERT.

First, the beginning monologue that laid the foundation for the emotional and philosophical tone of the film:

I was sheriff of this county when I was
twenty-five. Hard to believe. Grandfather
was a lawman. Father too. Me and him was
sheriff at the same time, him in Plano
and me here. I think he was pretty proud
of that. I know I was.

Some of the old-time sheriffs never even
wore a gun. A lot of folks find that hard
to believe. Jim Scarborough never carried
one. That the younger Jim. Gaston Boykins
wouldn’t wear one. Up in Commanche County.

I always liked to hear about the old-
timers. Never missed a chance to do so.
Nigger Hoskins over in Batrop County knowed
everybody’s phone number off by heart. You
can’t help but compare yourself against the
old timers. Can’t help but wonder how they
would’ve operated these times. There was
this boy I sent to Huntsville here a while
back. My arrest and my testimony. He killed
a fourteen-year-old girl. Papers said it
was a crime of passion but he told me there
wasn’t any passion to it.

Told me that he’d been planning to kill
somebody for about as long as he could
remember. Said that if they turned him
out he’d do it again.

Said he knew he was going to hell. Be
there in about fifteen minutes. I don’t
know what to make of that. I surely don’t.

The crime you see now, it’s hard to even
take its measure. It’s not that I’m afraid
of it.

I always knew you had to be willing to
die to even do this job – not to be
glorious. But I don’t want to push my
chips forward and go out and meet some-
thing I don’t understand.

You can say it’s my job to fight it but
I don’t know what it is anymore.

…More than that, I don’t want to know. A
man would have to put his soul at hazard.

… He would have to say, okay, I’ll be
part of this world.

Second, an explanation for what seemed to be the resignation that followed an anti-climatic end to the chase, as Bell realized he could no longer put his chips forward to face things unknown:

I don’t know. I feel overmatched.

…I always thought when I got older
God would sort of come into my life
in some way. He didn’t. I don’t blame
him. If I was him I’d have the same
opinion about me that he does.

Finally, the happy, comforting conclusion to the film that some might have missed:

Okay. Two of ‘em. Both had my father.
It’s peculiar. I’m older now’n he
ever was by twenty years. So in a sen-
se he’s the younger man. Anyway, first
one I don’t remember so well but it
was about money and I think I lost it.
The second one, it was like we was
both back in older times and I was on
horseback goin through the mountains
of a night.

…Goin through this pass in the moun-
tains. It was cold and snowin, hard
ridin. Hard country. He rode past me
and kept on goin. Never said nothin
goin by. He just rode on past and he
had his blanket wrapped around him and
his head down…

…and when he rode past I seen he
was carryin fire in a horn the way
people used to do and I could see the
horn from the light inside of it.
About the color of the moon. And in
the dream I knew that he was goin on
ahead and that he was fixin to make a
fire somewhere out there in allthat
dark and all that cold, and I knew
that whenever I got there he would be
there. Out there up ahead.

This was not to say that there was nothing in between. The point was not to mull over the state of the world in so many words, but to feel the weight of the land, of the troubles people face, and of the random luck-of-the-draw. For that, you’d have to watch the film and not this 3-quote summary. Or read the book, whichever suits you well.

There’s a full analysis on my other blog, if you’d like to read a wordier essay.

Categories: Aurelle · Coen Brothers · Directors · Film · Gems of note

It’s in the Eyes: Horror film and Optics

October 11, 2007 · 15 Comments

The title of this post makes it seem like I’m going to write an essay… which I’m not. I have a strange compulsive obssesion with the human eye, and I’ve noticed horror films more than any other film use them as motives, or in extreme close-ups. Sadly I don’t have an extensive DVD collection, and a bad memory so I can’t remember all the scenes that I would like.  There are a few I know of that I can’t get, namely from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), I also think there is one or two in Rosemary’s Baby… but I’m not sure. Here is what I have for now, any additions are welcome! Hitchcock in particular seems very fond of using eyes thematically (although he’s not exactly horror… especially outside of Psycho, I’m still including some from Vertigo because they are somewhat related). Check out The House Next Door’s Close-up Blog-a-thon for many great posts, all far better and informative than my own :p

vertigo

vertigo2

 

vertigo3

 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)

jekyll

 

jekyll2

jekyll3

Repulsion

respulsion

repulsion2

Psycho

psycho

psycho2

psycho 3

Thanks to a good friend for these screencaps from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

texas

tecas2

texa

Categories: Alfred Hitchcock · Directors · Film · Horror · Rouge