Leave it to Quentin Tarantino to find a climax unique in the history of war movies. Also trust QT to get away with a war movie that consists largely of his unique dialog style, in which a great deal of action is replaced by talk about the possibilities of action. His "Inglourious Basterds," which premiered Wednesday morning here at Cannes, is a screenplay eight years in the writing, and you can't fill 148 minutes with descriptions of special effects. At least not if you're a motormouth like Tarantino.
My review will await the film's August 21 opening. I know, I wrote a lot about "Antichrist," but with this one I'd like to hold out until opening day. No, that doesn't mean I disliked it. It means it inspired other kinds of thoughts--about Cannes, Tarantino, and the way the movie industry seems to be going these days.
"Why," Mr. Tarantino, he was asked at the press conference after the film, "did you choose to bring the film to Cannes?" In other words, why didn't you open it with another one of those god-awful junkets where entertainment reporters are plied with chilled shrimp and cycled through 3-minute sound-bite ops in a Four Seasons somewhere? You know, a controlled environment designed to churn out mindless publicity? Why expose it to the glare of Cannes, and to the baying of the hounds of hell, otherwise known as the world's film critics? A place where there are more questions at a press conference for the director of a film than for the stars?
"I make movies for Planet Earth," Tarantino answered, "and Cannes represents that." Not Planet Hollywood (whose branch here has long since closed). He said it never occurred to him to open his film anywhere else. His shooting schedule was under the gun of today's Cannes deadline. "We started talking about the film in August," Brad Pitt said, "and he said he would be here in May. And here we are."
And it's Tarantino, over the top!
I remember Tarantino the first time he came to Cannes in May 1992, with "Reservoir Dogs." Chaz and I had him all to ourselves at lunch down on the beach. We picked up the check. When he came in 1994 with "Pulp Fiction," there was a party that took up most of the top floor of the Carlton. In other words, something happened, and it wasn't that the freeloaders got chilled lobster. What happened was that Tarantino took his place in the Cannes Pantheon. It really does mean more to win the Palme d'Or than the Oscar for best film. It means more for the director, for sure. Hell, the best film Oscar is accepted by the producer.
QT is sometimes criticized for including too many references (some say whole scenes) from other movies in his own work. There are legends about his days as a video store clerk, memorizing B movies from the $1.99 bin. But the borrowed, or repurposed, or inspired, or quoted movie material in his films is there not because he lacks imagination but because he has too much. He loves movies with a fervor that inspires him to absorb us not only in his films, but in the films he loves. His arms are wide and gathers us in.
"Inglorious Basterds" is, I believe, the only war movie with its climactic scene set in a movie theater. The only war movie with a critical last-minute confrontation in the projection booth. The only war movie with a lecture on the fire hazard of nitrate film stock. The only one that pays much attention to the names of such great directors as Pabst and Clouzot. Tarantino's hero, played by Brad Pitt, is named Lt. Aldo Raine, which is as close as you can get to Aldo Ray, the star of "Battle Cry" (1955), which co-starred Van Heflin, who also gets a shout-out in "Basterds."
Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy arrive by horse-drawn carriage
Cannes has become, in a way, the sundowner party of Day of the Locusts. There was once a world, much deprecated at the time, of patriarchal studios, star machines, genre movies, fan magazines, searchlights, and filmmakers who wanted their movies to play big to everybody all over the world. Now what survives of that old world, hunched and inward, is no longer show business but just--business. A screenplay is evaluated for its demographic appeal, its video game possibilities, its spin-offs, its potential for commercial tie-ins. The suspense of its premiere is diluted a by pale, gnome-like creatures hunched over computers down in their parents' basements, busy as bees ripping off video copies of new films and posting them on the internet, to be downloaded by thieves who get more of a thrill out of stealing a film than by watching it. At least when there's a premiere at Cannes, you know it's a premiere. Some of the entries don't even have complete IMDb entries yet. Fans by the thousands cheer the arrivals. The red carpet becomes a fashion show staged by the Paris design houses, with the world watching on cable.
Buddy, can you spare a crime? (Carol Iwata)
The critics here are not on junkets. Many of them paid their own way, because if you're a movie critic, baby, this is where you gotta get your ass. Back home, most editors care more about Brad Pitt than Quentin Tarantino. That would be all right if they cared about Pitt for the right reasons. But the American press has been dumbed-down so much that some papers seem edited for an audience that does most of its reading off of TV screens. I ran into an old friend who has free-lanced for USA Today. "Yesterday, Lars von Trier's "Antichrist" was the big story," he told me. "USA Today featured coverage of Jim Carrey as Ebenezer Scrooge, arriving at the Carlton Hotel with Jenny McCarthy in a horse-drawn carriage."
There can be news value in such events. Consider the crowds Jerry Seinfeld drew when, dressed as a bee, he slid down a wire from the roof of the Carlton to promote "Bee Movie." To be sure, much of the press just wanted to have someone on the scene if the cable snapped. Now that would be newsworthy, a photo of a crumbled and bloody bumblebee suit.
My door is always open (Roger Ebert)
Cannes behaves as if such a world doesn't exist. Today the talk is about Tarantino. Yesterday it was about Lars von Trier. Here it doesn't matter if you liked his new film. At least you've heard of him. There are students here waiting tables in the beachfront pavilions to finance their stays, their hopes of "networking" and making their own films someday. Here there is a young man named Scott Collette who e-mailed me saying, "I am at the greatest film festival in the world, and it looks like I won't be able to get into a single film." He has a festival job with a distributor renting space across the street from the Palais. I advised him to try what worked for our granddaughter Raven--stand in front of the Palais holding a sign saying Invitation! and hope someone will give them a ticket.
After "Inglorious Basterds" today, Scott introduced himself outside on the sidewalk. I asked if he'd seen any films. "Not yet. And I got my boss's pass confiscated for using it to try to sneak in." I guess he doesn't look much like the I.D. photo of a middle-aged distributor. Chaz told him she had heard stories of people with the wrong passes being taken down into the bowels of the Palais and lectured sternly by security.
It happened that at the Tarantino press conference, we were seated near to Harvey Weinstein, who with his brother Bob is releasing the movie. The Weinsteins were once kids here without a ticket. "We were hanging around the stage door, hoping to get in and make our way around to the front," Harvey told me. "An official festival limo pulled up, and Clint Eastwood got out. We probably looked needy. He sized us up, held open the door, and let us in. To this day, we both make it a point to let someone into the Palais."
¶
Note to Scott Collette: Someday when you are a big-time distributor with an office across from the Palais, you will remember this story, and do the right thing.
¶
Below: The basterds at their press conference (Roger Ebert; Click on all art to enlarge)
¶
¶My Shaky-Cam video from Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds" press conference at Cannes (Part One)
¶
Part Two: The "Inglorious Basterds" press conference at Cannes
¶
Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" acceptance speech, Cannes 1994¶
I just noticed what looks like a typo. If so, then it's an awesome one. If not, then it gets even funnier:
Consider the crowds Jerry Seinfeld drew when, dressed as a beer, he slid down a wire from the roof of the Carlton to promote "Bee Movie,"
Ebert: I'm running on empty here and have been rather proud of some of my better typos.
I must admit to awaiting the new Tarantino with some interest, even if it means seeing some actors chew the scenery along the way.
Pulp Fiction was the first Tarantino movie I ever saw. A friend and I had gone to the theater and, having never heard of Pulp Fiction, we bought a ticket to Jerky Boys, of all things.
Fifteen minutes into the horrid Jerky Boys, we snuck out of that theater and into the one next door, which was playing Pulp Fiction.
We couldn't stop talking about it all night, and ever since then I get giddy whenever Tarantino directs a new movie.
Why would you talk about Inglorious Basterds and then not give us even a tiny glimpse into your thoughts about it?!?
You are cruel.
I think that last YouTube clip should be labeled 1994. Although I'm sure Quentin Tarantino dreams about inventing a time machine and attending in 1974: new movies from Fellini, Pasolini, Fassbinder, Bresson, Ashby, Spielberg, and Altman--plus Fritz the Cat and a little Francis Ford Coppola film called The Conversation. Were you there that year?
It sure is a privelege this Cannes trip through the eyes of one of the chiefest guests......
It sure is a privelege this Cannes trip through the eyes of one of the chiefest guests......
Thank you for your restraint on the QT film. I always read reviews after I see his films. I passed, for now, on viewing the presser. Some films, apparently "Antichrist" is one of them, benefit from discussion before viewing, some need to be seen cold. The great ones, Speilberg spoke about this regarding Kubrick, need to be seen many times. Some need to be seen, but only once.
Mr. Ebert,
I just want to say that I appreciate your view of cinema. I have been reading reviews of Inglourious Basterds and hearing nothing but hate for the fact that it has more dialogue than action and I ask, is this what movies have become? Is it more important to have flashy special effects than a real story? Is it more important to have a trilogy or franchise than to have one good standalone movie? It seems that today, it is.
I am only 21 years old but I long for the past that I hear so much about. I watch movies from the 30's and 40's. I respect actors like James Cagney and Tom hanks alike. I watch movies like Casablanca and Tranformers and enjoy both but in very different ways. I am very worried about where the movie industry is going because it is something I have always wanted to be apart of. I want to make movies but I don't want to have to cater them to demographics or interest groups. I don't want to have giant robots or realistically animated characters in order to impress people. I want to be able to have something stand on its own merit as well written and well directed.
Filmmaking today seems to be more about how to trick the audience rather than convince them. It's more about amazing them with special effects than bringing them into your world with rich characters and an interesting story. I hope Inglourious Basterds is as "bad" as these reviews are saying it is because maybe I can actually enjoy it. To me, Quentin Tarantino is one of the few directors who is willing to stay true to himself without having to worry about pleasing people. He just makes film because he loves film and that is what making movies is all about. I think some people have forgotten that...
- Josh C.
Enjoying your candid and very informational Cannes reporting very much Mr. Ebert! Certainly looking forward to QT's release in August. I read the Antichrist posts twice and still not sure if I even want to see it. This might have something to do with not beiang able to finish watching Pasolini's Salo recently! Oh yeah...I also am hoping to have comment #1 on the blog for once.
Maybe, just maybe, setting the final scene in a movie theatre is an homage to Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow"?
Ebert: Doesn't sound like it might be at the top of QT's reading list, but you never know.
Surely you mean:
Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" acceptance speech, Cannes 1994
I don't think Jerry Seinfield was dressed as a beer...
I've ruminated over the idea that a people gets the press it deserves - that the media only mirrors the interests and values of its readership - hundreds of times, and it usually strikes me as unfortunate. Often this manifests itself in something like an original artistic work (such as Antichrist) being ignored in favor of some hammy publicity stunt (which, in this case, will only further enable Carrey and McCarthy to spread potentially dangerous misinformation about vaccines). Here is one case, though, when I can't be particularly disappointed, if only because of my own palpable disinterest in von Trier's apparently graphically violent musings about religion. When even film critics - whose experience and expertise in viewing movies have afforded them a special capacity for experimental and challenging film - and the French have no tolerance for a film, I can't fault the American media for not devoting much space to it. It's the same reason I can't fault USA Today for not publishing the latest detailed technical specs of semiconductors.
Likewise, I am thankful that the continual fragmentation of the news industry and the development of the Internet offers coverage and opinions of the sort I find here, and I suppose I should be happy that USA Today is at least informing its readers that Cannes is taking place.
As for Tarantino, his constant synthesis and appropriation of the work of others sometimes makes me question his own creative ability, though at other times it seems eminently appropriate in this age of hip-hop sampling. His tendency to do so, I'm afraid, does somewhat limit his potential.
Also I think that perhaps you suggest more about your feelings of the film than you intend by saying it inspired thoughts that weren't entirely focused on the film itself. It could still be wonderful, sure, but if it were truly fantastic I think there is little doubt you would have come back and immediately fired off an entry devoted entirely to it.
Roger, without giving away anything for anyone who knows nothing about the film, did you find the lack of historical...relevance (is that the right word?) detracted from the film or enhanced it? Or did it even matter? Just curious.
And thanks for these updates. I am dying to see "Antichrist" now.
Ebert: That Tarantino, what a card.
I understand the French praising the director, the so-called "author" of the film, especially in cases where the director is also the writer, which is more often in the case in French rather than American cinema. Tarantino and Von Trier are not only the directors of their films, but also the writers.
But Tarantino's _Inglourious Basterds_ -- eight years to create on paper, eight months to execute -- is an instructive case. "How a movie is about what it's about" does often come from the page, and I'm not sure it's fair for critics insist upon so-called auteur theory.
Caan does not simply elevate the director above the star, but the lowly writer as well -- at least in the event where the director is also the writer, which happens quite often with this festival.
What a great opportunity to travel to the film festival. After my
freshman year in college I went straight home to my parents to look for
a summer job. Now I don't remember if I worked at Walgreens or a city
program for youths. So enjoy yourself and create an album or video or
scrapbook or whatever 18-year-olds do to document memories.
T Ladner
Either Ebert is writing all the posts now or someone needs to turn off the bold.
It's kind of disappointing I won't be able to see the versions of "Basterds" and "Antichrist" you saw at Cannes. U.S. audiences and distributors won't go for the lengthiness and sexual mutilation of those films.
Ebert: IFC will release it as seen here.
Thank you for the updates Roger, very enjoyable as always. I hope you will comment on Chan-Wook Park's 'Thirst' in a future entry. I'm really looking forward to that one.
Were there any gratuitous closeup shots of bare feet in this one? With every passing film Tarantino does, they slip in more and more.
"But the borrowed, or repurposed, or inspired, or quoted movie material in his films is there not because he lacks imagination but because he has too much. He loves movies with a fervor that inspires him to absorb us not only in his films, but in the films he loves. His arms are wide and gathers us in."
It's about time somebody put that so eloquently.
A lot of the people who dislike Tarantino have said that the movie is too cruel to the Nazis. I say that if your detractors have to resort to becoming Nazi sympathizers in order to find something to throw at you, then bravo.
As for the historical retconning, I doubt it's even an issue when seen in the context of the story. If anything, the audacity of the way the movie ends should be a delight after seeing so many Holocaust-weepies.
PS. Some of your typos in your Cannes entries here have been amongst the best typos I've ever seen. Besides being hilarious on their own, they also go to show how excited and exhausted the festival is making you.
Please forgive me if my English is poor. I'm 24, a student from Hanoi, Vietnam and have just really got into cinema for about 4 years now. The first thing I want to say is thank you to Mr. Roger Ebert, I've read countless of your reviews and a couple of your books, and this is the first time I have ever written anything here in your blog. You're really are my greatest teacher when it comes to cinema. I'm sure I will never really appreciate Citizen Kane and a great numbers of old classic movies if it's not for you. RAGING BULL and THE GENERAL(Keaton)are among my favorite films ever .I've also watched La Dolce Vita 2 times and still not like it, but I'm sure like you, I will understand its greatness in years to come.
Kurosawa is my favorite director of all time and every new movie from Scorsese is an event for me, but Quentin Tarantino is the director I truly love, the director I grew up with and hopefully will grow old with. If all goes well, QT will be in the business for about 30 years and we will have about 10 more films of his to enjoy, and I feel pretty good about that, considering.
Now I'm sure nobody has read more reviews about Inglorious Basterds than I did. A lot positive :Todd McCarthy, my second favorite critic LOVED it. Michaeal Phillips seems to like it. Some reviews called it his best since Pulp Fiction, the most positive review from ObsessedWithFilm called it a masterpiece, others said it was good, but not that great. There are also many people did not like it, Peter Bradshaw from The Guardian basically called it a piece of trash and name Aldo Raine the worst performance of Pitt's career. Well, as far as I know, his fans are and will not be disappointed, which is exactly what I hope for. I don't get it when people( especially the British press) complained about its length and its "boring talking" which I find completely bullshit. Like you said Mr.Ebert, no good movies are long enough and no bad movies are short enough. Quentin has never been known as an action director (although I think Kill Bill 1 is awesome) but known rather for his pop culture reference and his witty dialogue. Have these people never seen a QT film before??? You don't go to a Rolling Stone live show and expect to listen to jazz. In that situation I just have to quote The Dark Knight "Either you die a hero, or you live long enough to be a villain". QT has got too much backlash over years just because of his goofy character and his popularity but not because of his films. Yes, he's goofy sometimes but when it comes to cinema, his films, his baby, QT's always worth listening to and he never compromises, always stays true to his character, which I love.
You're absolutely right. At Cannes, QT but not Jolie and Pitt is the star. Watching him dancing on the red carpet, talking passionately about films and cinema and his cast is just a bless for me. This is the first Cannes Film Fest that I follow (Of course via Internet) and up till now really enjoy it as well as your report.
Inglorious Basterds is my most anticipated movie of the year (together with Shutter Island) and I'm sure it will delivers. And Mr Ebert, I'm sure as hell I will chew on your review at least 3 times on August.
Thank you any best regards.
Quan,Hanoi,Vietnam.
Ebert: Apart from your interesting remarks, all i have to say is that your English is perfect, alive and engaging.
Chaz visited Hanoi and other Vietnamese cities a few years ago and loved the experiences she had.
Tarantino always looks like he's having fun. So do his actors. If for no other reason, he's a national treasure.
That, and that long push into Sam Jackson's face as he adds it all up in Jackie Brown--Tarantino really gets it.
Thanks Roger.
I am so grateful to have met you and am even more grateful to have discovered the section above in which you've written about me (and to me).
I discussed the invitation begging (per Raven's blog) with several people and have been told of a few obstacles. I think all the students down there already have badges... at least the ones I saw today all did... so I'm ready for it not to work. I will still try my hardest though... but if I can't get into a movie, I just have to remember that it's only my first Cannes. Maybe I'll get another chance one year. But for this year, at least I got to meet Roger Ebert and I even wound up in his blog!
Great meeting both you and Chaz!
Thanks,
Scott
Ebert: Given how much it costs to get and be here, next year you might consider purchasing a Marche badge.
Hi Roger,
I know that you have not published your review of Inglourious Basterds yet, but it doesn't seem to have evoked an extremely passionate reaction like Antichrist did a few days ago. This started me thinking about Tarantino himself. There was much talk about him after Pulp Fiction was released, and I believe you yourself said that not since Orson Welles had a filmmaker made such an auspicious early film. None of his subsequent films has made as much a stir as Pulp Fiction (an aside: I personally think Jackie Brown is his best film, and one of the best of the 90s). I think the reason is that he tries to put his stamp on genres that many in both the critical and viewing community don't seem to take very seriously (blaxploitation, Hong Kong action, slasher). Do you think this tendency to dwell in these genres has hampered or hurt his filmmaking?
Having seen only Pulp Fiction, what I liked was the talk, talk, talk aspect, for the same reason that literature is more challenging and intellectually stimulating than the audio visual which leaves you just numbed. Vive verbosite'!
Dear Roger,
Thanks again for these pieces.
It's interesting that you speak of Tarantino right after speaking of "Antichrist." As I read your reflections on "Antichrist," they immediately reminded me of your original reflections on seeing "Pulp Fiction" at Cannes. I think you stated then that you were trying to make sense of it, and knew that it would either make your list of the 10 best or the 10 worst films of that year.
Thus, I suppose that "Antichrist" will make your 10 best list?
Safe travels.
Omer M
Dear Roger,
Thanks again for these pieces.
It's interesting that you speak of Tarantino right after speaking of "Antichrist." As I read your reflections on "Antichrist," they immediately reminded me of your original reflections on seeing "Pulp Fiction" at Cannes. I think you stated then that you were trying to make sense of it, and knew that it would either make your list of the 10 best or the 10 worst films of that year.
Thus, I suppose that "Antichrist" will make your 10 best list?
Safe travels.
Omer M
I just wanted to say thanks for all your coverage of Cannes. I consider it a kind of favor you're doing us when you could be enjoying the festival itself, so I wish the typo police would take a break.
Thanks again for the blog updates.
I certainly hope that "Inglorious Basterds" is better than the very boring "Death Proof." I look forward to reading your review.
Are you going to write anything about Almodovar's "Broken Embraces?" I'd really to get some info on that film.
Your comment about the "climactic scene in a movie theater" reminded me of the Sam Fuller assertion--I think in The Typewriter, the Rifle, and the Movie Camera (in which Tarantino appears)--that all war movies are B.S., and that the only way to make a realistic one would be to have a marksman firing live rounds at the audience. This may be a coincidence, but I'll bet there are a few Fuller references in Tarantino's movie.
Dear Roger,
I was hoping for a bare all analysis from you regarding Tarantino's Basterds but looks like I will have to wait till August. I envy you for being in that unique position of having known and seen the growth of Tarantino as a filmmaker from his earliest offerings.
Fellini is often regarded as the last filmmaker who created a new genre (the "mockumentary"), however I have always maintained that that honor should go to Tarantino who with Pulp Fiction created this new style of film making where his films comment on films themselves and the joy of film making. I had expected that you would include it in your recent list of the ten most influential films, especially considering how much his influence has spawned a generation of filmmakers attempting to imitate his inimitable style of insouciant narrative story telling, impassioned quirky dialog, casual yet somewhat restrained violence, reigniting retro coolness and that open arms embrace of the love of all things cinematic, from the classics to camp.
Oh, buggerall. Shouldn't it be "Inglorious Bastards" with a second A? Sorry to be so left-brained about it, but as a self-employed editor I started obsessing and missed the gist of the post (and comments, too) wondering if it was a deliberate misspelling or if Mr. Ebert's own editor had fallen asleep.
Not that I'm likely to view the film--I have some trouble with separating myself from the events on the screen and will only view the mildest of movies. (I was blindsided in my late teens by seeing "Catch 22" without knowing anything about it beforehand. Had nightmares for months.)
Ebert: QT spells it basterds.
My Hollywood infected mind ( or should I say heart?) was expecting a hollywood comedy/drama pay-off with that "Scott Collette waiting outside and Harvey Weinstein reminencing when he was a young man without a ticket" part. A picture of Scott between Weinstein and Ebert, experiencing the festival the way he never dreamed he would etc etc etc
I really need to start to watch better movies :(
Words have an inner warmth whereas the best of movies leave you feeling knocked out till someone counts ten. On the plus side movies are time-effective-----compare the time needed for reading Anna Karenina( more than a month it took me) or Les Miserables in these cell-phone-email times to the time needed for the Garbo or Leigh film versions---but then its beggary, except for a term assignment.
For movies I suppose there is a recuperation period before it becomes embedded, if it does.
Ebert: For me, reading both of those great novels was a period of hypnotic submersion.
So reading between the lines I take it that you liked the film, but are troubled by the reaction from other critics. If thats the case then I'm not surprised, theres been a few cases recently *cough* Star Trek *cough* that have made me wonder whether true film criticism is even desirable for a lot of publications anymore. It just seems that the reviews have a veneer of objectivity but are really just an comparison to what they think will get average Jo's bum on seat. Thanks for still being a good read.
Oh, dear lord, I can't wait to see it. When Quentin Tarantino said during Cannes last year that he would be there the following year with his new film, I definitely did not believe him. How could you blame me? He'd been talking about this flick since before Jackie Brown (at one point, Harvey Keitel's character from Pulp Fiction, Mr Wolf, was going to be in it, too). But, here it is, and oh, dear lord, I can't wait to see it.
The movie's title is actually Inglourious Basterds, Marguerite.
Well, Ebert didn't tell us much about "Inglorious Basterds" but at least he was kind enough to show us that Jenny McCarthy has really pointy nipples.
As far as what you're saying about the festival and the coverage of it goes, I have to say that I really appreciate being able to come here and read the Cannes journals of you and your colleagues. It's like a safe haven for people that are really curious about the films there and are intrigued by Lars Von Trier's latest work or the critical response to Tarantino's latest film.
I got very annoyed this evening when on the front page news at Yahoo, the only mention of Cannes was in an article "Brad and Angelina wow the Cannes red carpet". Like we don't get enough of that at the Oscars, the Golden Globes, and just about any other occasion in Hollywood. This is the Cannes Film Festival, not the Cannes Star Fuckers Convention.
I have always wanted to some day go to the Cannes Film Festival, and to this day, I still hold out hope of some day getting to a position in life where I can get a pass. Though even if I begged for a ticket or had someone let me in at the door, I'd be happy. This is the world I want to be a part of. Where everyone knows, appreciates, and focuses on the craftsmanship of filmmaking and its unique craftsmen.
Actually, the proper title is "Inglourious Basterds," with a 'u' after the first 'o' in inglorious. I'm sure QT did this to make sure there is no confusion between his film, and one of the same name from sometime in the 60's. It was a B-movie, so I'm sure he's seen it.
Roger:
Off-topic of Tarantino and Cannes: In today's review of "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian," you say:
One actor surpasses the material. That would be Amy Adams, as Amelia Earhart, because she makes Amelia sweet and lovable, although from what I gather, in real life that was not necessarily the case. I found myself thinking, isn't it time for a biopic about Earhart?
I'm not sure if you meant this to be a "tongue-in-cheek" comment. You *are* aware, aren't you, that there *is* a biopic of Amelia Earhart coming out later this year? It stars Hilary Swank, and is directed by Mira Nair. (Should be worth watching.)
Also, in your "Museum/Smithsonian" review, you mention "Amelia pilots the plane she went down in on that sad second of July."
Interesting. I wonder how the Smithsonian managed to locate it and bring it up from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.
At any rate, it should be fun to see Amy Adams this summer, alongside Meryl Streep as Julia Child, in "Julie and Juila."
And so Scott didn't get in? After reading Harvey Weinstein's story, I thought you might have intereceded on Scott's behalf.
Ebert: 'm not in the same holding-the-door open category as Eastwood and Weinstein.
He's said that "Inglourious" is how a German would pronounce inglorious, and "Basterds" is how bastards SHOULD be spelled. His scripts are chock full of spelling and grammatical errors. He types with one finger on an outdated word processor.
All of these Cannes entries are making me more and more depressed that I won't get to see any of these films for God knows how long. Especially considering the contrast between the (assumed) quality of these movies and that of your most recently reviewed...I think I'll pass on Battle of the Smithsonian.
'Bastards' vs. 'Basterds'... I'd have had some cheap laughs if he had called it 'Basturds'
There is a wonderful shot in the 1935 Greta Garbo film of Anna Karenina of the post suicide moment as the train soundlessly fades into the distance which captures what Tolstoi conveys in that incomparable paragraph and maybe something more. Trains are so poetically expressive!
I can't wait to see "Inglourious Basterds"!! It will be hard for him to top "Pulp Fiction" and "Kill Bill"; however, I hope that he has not pulled another "Death Proof". No one needs to hear a conversation about "Vanishing Point" (at least "Inglourious Basterds" takes place during WWII, so pop culture references will be minimal).
As a matter of fact, I don't care for a movie to mention other movies in their subject matter (unless you have something like "The Dreamers"). I know, it is either paying homage or parodying this or that, but come on! In a way, it just seems like sloppy writing. Still, QT is one of the best screenwriters out there.
Roger, I'm sure you've been getting plenty of doses from complaining video gamers who take offense to your repeated reference of modern film's "video game possibilities". Well, here's another.
You aren't wrong (particularly about the new Fast & The Furious...sigh) but can we at least agree that this sort of big business exploitation didn't start with video gaming? Weren't films like Purple Rain and Krush Groove designed to sell record albums? Heck, even the new Transformers went out of its way to show off the capabilities of Chevy cars.
By Mike Jonze on May 21, 2009 3:04 AM: "Actually, the proper title is "Inglourious Basterds," with a 'u' after the first 'o' in inglorious. I'm sure QT did this to make sure there is no confusion between his film, and one of the same name from sometime in the 60's. It was a B-movie, so I'm sure he's seen it."
Sometime in the '70s, actually--but I'm sure Bo Svenson and Fred "The Hammer" Williamson thanks you for the shoutout--and hey: Wasn't Williamson in From Dusk Till Dawn? And Bo S. in Kill Bill 2 as the reverend? "That Tarantino, what a card."
"I make movies for Planet Earth," Tarantino answered
Is this a joke? I doubt people living in Darfur or Chad understand QT's rich dialogue about Charles Bronson, one-hit wonder disco songs, Pam Greer, f*&k this/f*&k that, another 1970s American culture reference... f*&k this/f*&k that, obscure movie reference... f*&k you... etc... and etc... etc...
How timeless and universal is that?
QT's movies are entertaining but in the same way Family Guy is. He just cuts, pastes and creates a collage. After that he presents it as art.
I respect your saving your review for I.B.'s release (avoiding the spelling snare), but, to clarify, tell me if I.B. is better than Death Proof. I thought Kurt Russell (one of the most likable and under-rated actors today) was cruelly used in that.
I believe it's been asked here, too, but I must have missed the answer: Will your journal one day become a book? I'm a huge admirer of yours but have never purchased one of your books. I will remedy that if these journal entries someday come bound between two covers. In addition to the skill with which these are written, I'd be drawn to buying the book because of the fact that there's a really appealing feeling of audience participation.
Now that you mention it, why DOES the producer accept the best film Oscar?
Ebert: The Academy deems the producer the maker of the film.
That which has mass appeal to a population is self validating as a topic of philosophical inquiry... Although there are certain aspects of our culture that obtain a degree of mass notification and interest inappropriately, they are fascinating for their ability to say something about ourselves. It just won't do to suppress our own desire to follow what everyone else desires, at least some of the time, this coming from someone who spends most of his time doing just this. I often dream of transforming the world in some tangible way, Flannery O Conner said that it was the job of English teachers to change the titles on the best seller list, of making an impact of cultural popularity, but it's a frustrating task to undertake, especially one very afraid of any type of public declaration on opinion... but the other day I did wave my hand over the magazines/periodicals in the grocery aisle (the great melting pot), and said words like "Dickens"... "Augustine"... "Steinbeck"... "Dostoevsky". Unfortunately nothing happened.
Cannes seems such hard work!
Anna Karenina 1935 the suicide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY8jr2Gc4mk
To "Larry" at 1:27pm on May 21st:
The attitude displayed here about our culture is frightening to me. Film (and art as a whole) is a barometer of our cultural evolution. We exist at a certain stage in our biological evolution, yes, but running parallel to that is our collective cultural organism. We desperately need to pay attention to it, we have the power to direct it and not only nurture it, but to find in it a new strength to grow. It's narcissism to a healthy end.
A species that survives in America may not survive in Africa, and vice-versa. I daresay they all desperately want to do the same basic thing, though -- to live.
I'd also venture to say that if QT is not consciously aware of it, he's most certainly unconciously aware of it. Certain language devices, themes, images, or strings of words that are re-used or re-purposed in his films have passed the Darwinian test and will be passed on to a new generation to grow from, create with, and find life in. I am certain that all filmmakers and artists do this, either consciously or unconciously.
What he's doing is useful -- what all creative people do is useful. Useful on a personal level, and useful on a cultural level.
Larry: Tarantino's films typically do better overseas than they do here in the US. Kill Bill in particular maintains a strong cult following in Japan.
Anyway, all art can essentially be boiled down to cut and paste if you choose to see it that way. Read Joseph Campbell.
Easier to say what I don't like than what I do like. First I will put words in their mouths to show how I see them. Q Tarantino and Ron Howard, two peas in a pod. Ron Howard asks 'Wouldn't it be really really cool if...'. Q Tarantino says 'I will traumatize them with the coolness of this scene... this plot....'. I think they are trying to hard to be really cool.
I don't like that.
Interesting, Roger. Very interesting. I appreciate that you're saving your thoughts on Basterds until the release date, but could you pwetty pwetty pwease answer me this little question: Is it a film Tarantino would make, or a film that he would enjoy watching? The past couple of films he has done have striked me more as films that HE would like to watch rather than classic Tarantino films. Of course, that might not have made any sense, as my wording of things can be quite bizarre at times, but I'm hoping that you can understand what I mean (you are quite intellectual, so I can assume so.)
Also, have you by any chance seen Chan-Wook Park's Thirst yet? I heard that it was playing there. I've had pretty high hopes for that one. I may even say that I was looking forward to it most of all this year. I've loved most of Park's work (The Vengeance Trilogy has really grown on me lately; a back-to-back viewing of them really adds to the feel and helps bring up great discussion afterwards) and from the little clips I've seen online, it doesn't look to disappoint. Seeing as how you're one of the four or five critics whom I truly respect, your opinion on it would be quite valuable to me. Assuming of course that you've seen it.
ummm as much as i love tarentino i have to say that i am rather disturbed that he loves the movie heavens gate...was there another or is this the disaster i am afraid hes talking about?...so he wants to "aspire" to having the worlds biggest flop ever?...oh well if you must have a guilty pleasure...the annual fan club meetings must be boring
Roger,
Do you think the actors, directors and writers of today really are as skilled and gifted as the days of old; or is it really more about making money now more than it is an artistic endeavor?
Is it more of a function of the vast machine than anything else? Are actors like Brad Pitt really that good, or is it just an illusion created by the camera and elements?
For the record, I like Tarantino and Brad Pitt... I'd just like to know what something who has experience about the entertainment industry thinks.
The ending of American Beauty gives the "last moment" an effective and memorable treatment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYrgHju3d-E&feature=related
Roger,
Did you happen to catch Tarantino's Whole Bloody affair when it debuted at Cannes? and if so, is it really a night and day difference a la Almost Famous and its bootleg edition?
Thanks,
Rodney
Dear Mr. Ebert,
I respect your opinion and I truly love to read your comments and reviews, although I do not always agree with your conclusions.
It may be a personal problem of my own understanding, but the reason why I dislike all of Tarantino's films since (and including) "Kill Bill" is the fact that they use stylized violence to entertain a mass public.
Yes, all of his films are made well from a technical perspective, but I fear that they may influence many people in a really questionable way - just due to Mr. Tarantino's popularity.
I liked "Pulp Fiction" for its unpredictability and love "Jackie Brown" which I still think is his most accomplished work to date.
But look at "Kill Bill" (especially Part 1) for example: Of course, the set pieces are beautiful and the action is choreographed breathtkingly, but just the amount of violence is too much and its presentation way too "cool".
Violence in movies should always make you hate it and make you want to avoid it, and it should only be the "ultima ratio" one selects if all other means failed.
I think, that a movie like "Saving Private Ryan" does that, and "Kill Bill" or "Death Proof" (a truly awful and extremely boring film, by the way) do not.
In my opinion it is not valid to use violence as pure entertainment.
I hate how media and films or TV shows in particular portray violence in recent years: Do we really need torture porn crap like "Wolf Creek", "SAW 3" or "Hostel 2", or remakes of films like "The Hills Have Eyes" that are even more degenerated than the original movies they are based on? Is it necessary, that a hero Jack Bauer tortures captives to obtain information in Prime Time TV?
Yes, I know that Tarantino's films are considered cinematically better than the ones mentioned above, but I still think that they help to make violence more accessible to the general public.
Look at the current slate of revenge movies or films about vigilante justice: Even respectable actors like Kevin Bacon are participating in projects ("Death Sentence") which are in favor of capital punishment, while instead the public should be convinced of getting rid of it rather sooner than later.
I know that there are enough arguments claiming that this is just art and people know that movies have nothing to do with reality.
We all know about the problems even children under 10 are facing when they are confronted by sexual content on the Internet available on countless free porn web-sites or by video messages on their mobile phones.
Last year there has been a study in Germany examining how teenagers (14 and above, if I remember correctly) are affected by this permanent exposure to sexual images and videos regarding their own love life. The study came to the conclusion that over 70 percent of these children consuming such stuff on a regular basis were not able anymore to be stimulated sexually in a "normal" way by their partners. They needed additional stimula like violence, toys or hardcore porno films.
Therfore, do we really think that permanent exposure to violence in films does not affect people in some negative way, especially when violence seems to be "cool" and a legitimate way to solve problems?
In my personal opionion, Quentin Tarantino's films show violence in a gratuitous way that should not be considered desirable by a society which is so proud of its human accomplishments.
And I am really sad, that most reviewers judge a Tarantino film only by its technical qualities and not by the morality it conveys.
Also, I have not seen "Inglourious Basterds" yet and only watched the Trailer: Does the film pay tribute to the memory of the soldiers suffering on both sides of WW2?
Just to make one thing clear: Not all German soldiers have been Evil Nazi SS Generals, which (by the film's logic) deserve to be clubbed to death.
Is it legitimate to make a dark-humoured splatter film set to the background of the Second World War? I seriously doubt it ...
A brief observation about the new Tarantino, perhaps irrelevant but certainly impertinent:
In "Pulp Fiction", QT incorporates the famous scene from the Three Stooges short "Brideless Groom" in which the Stooges's beloved foil, Emil Sitka, utters the immortal line,"Now hold hands, you lovebirds!" When the screenplay was published in book form, I looked up that scene, and found that QT had given the actor's name as 'Emil Simkuss'. That, of all things, has stayed with me all this time, and it has led me to the following conclusion:
The true significance of the title "Inglourious Basterds" is that QUENTIN TARANTINO CANNOT SPELL.
(Coming to you direct from Occam's Razor.)
Mr. Ebert, do you recall what the woman was screaming about when Tarantino flipped her off? I thought I remembered it being a pretty unanimous decision that Pulp Fiction was worthy of the acclamation and award?
Hey Ebert, I'm a long time reader. This is my most anticipated film of 2009. I've been trying to stay away from any reviews and spoilers because I don't want to know anything thats going to happen in this film. Even though you didn't go into specifics, I think you should have had a spoiler warning before revealing where the climatic scene and final scene take place...
Reading Monte's little story about getting tickets to "Jerky Boys" and then sneaking into "Pulp Fiction" and discovering Tarantino is amazing, since "Boys" came out in 1995, and reminded me that "Pulp Fiction" was one of those very rare movies in the modern era that just chugged along for months upon months in the theatres.
It was the first rated-R film I didn't have to sneak into, having turned 18 just a couple months before it's release. I saw it the weekend "Shawshank" came out, I believe. And by the time I saw it a third time about 8 or 9 months later, "Forrest Gump" had already won the Oscar and Tom Hanks' next film "Apollo 13" was opening.
Amazing, it played in October '94, and was still chugging along the following summer.
Lars A.
I recall with great vividity the scene in the George Roy Hill classic "Slapshot" where Reggie Dunlop(Paul Newman) confronted the owner of his hockey team, who informs him that she hates hockey because it is violent, and children who see such violence will imitate it. Newman's response? "You're fucked...completely."
Lars, I offer you such a response. Tarantino made a movie for adults. It is a matter of their own discretion whether or not to show it to children.
"And I am really sad, that most reviewers judge a Tarantino film only by its technical qualities and not by the morality it conveys."
Thank you, Michael Medved. And two other things, "Death Proof" was excellent, with the so-called "boring" dialogue allowing us to form an emotional attachment to the characters. And Zoe Bell is both amazingly sexy and a physical force to be reckoned with. And, FYI, it is perfectly acceptable to set comic book action hijinks in the context of WW2. "The Dirty Dozen", "Where Eagles Dare", "The Guns of the Navarone", the original "Inglorious Bastards", and the underrated "Force 10 From Navarone". If you cannot appreciate "The Dirty Dozen", I seriously question your manhood. Also, I'll take killing Nazis with baseball bats as a suitable corrective to any number of mediocre Holocaust movies, and there are many. Were all German soldiers bad guys? No, and I do love Peckinpah's "Cross of Iron", but so what? By your lame rationale, the Germans in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" did not deserve to have their faces melted off, and that, man, is unacceptable. And Roger, you tease, give us review into other Cannes pictures, and not the one some of us(not you, Lars) have been holding our breath for. Torture!
When I saw Pulp Fiction 15 years ago it was like a revelation. And I was pretty sure that Q.T.’s way of storytelling and dialogue-ing would be copied and developed. But looking back I must say, I was wrong. Mr. T and his movies are still a unique exception in the business and no-one has been able “to break out of Q.T. Land” (as you had it in your review of Go). We should admit this.
The weather's improved where I live and with it, the chance now to go further up the local hiking trails and deeper into the woods. And ergo distracted, I didn't get a chance until today to actually watch Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds" press conference at Cannes; as I'm in too pain to do much of anything else save sit in a chair. :)
I laughed at all the Canadian references - CBC Radio Canada, Maclean's Magazine and comments by Meyers etc. So too, the general banter and wit on display by those assembled - "several bottles of wine and what looked to be a smoking apparatus of some sort" (Grin.) Sounds like they were enjoying themselves and that was nice to see.
I've read the synopsis for the film, seen some trailers, been to the official website - I can't wait! Rubbing hands together!
I like Tarantino, always have. That includes the Grindhouse stuff - the comic-book fantasy of a hot chick slaying zombies with a prosthetic machine-gun leg was awesome; chuckle!
Here's the thing about Quintin; he sees the road and the tributaries branching off it. And he lets both genders play with all the crayons in the box and he's fearless - in a good way. What do you think of, when you think of Pulp Fiction? Uma Thurman and John Travolta dancing perhaps? Or maybe Samuel L. Jackson's dialogue? I think of that too, but I also think of the "male rape scene" - you know what I'm talking about. It went somewhere so few EVER dare to go! And turned a thing back around and onto itself, so as to show and comment upon it.
Tarantino is an equal opportunity offender. Both male and female sensibilities can find things to take issue with - and ironically, why I can't take issue with him. I find myself laughing "at" and "with" the stuff in his movies. I think they make men look really bad moreover, and if you're a guy and get off on them, ironically part of what he's slyly commenting upon. And I say that after reading this:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2007/11/is_tarantino_re_1
Morally suspect? Yes, absolutely; at least I can see how you could make a case against Tarantino being a feminist filmmaker. It's the same argument some have leveled against David Lynch and even David Cronenberg. For me, it's where your heart is at. And if, as a director, you don't always hit a perfect bulls-eye - then yeah, you can take issue\ with a movie if it "misses" its target. But if the hand pulling the trigger was honestly trying to hit something it usually hits (there's a track record) then okay; I'll trust that you weren't having fun at my gender's expense when you showed me a hot chick slaying zombies with a prosthetic machine-gun leg; chuckle!
And if Tarantino ever makes a movie I don't like for being truly offended but it, I'll grab a torch and pitch fork too. :)
Note: I remember the fuss about the marketing for Death Proof. It was offensive. But that's because the marketing of the film pulled the film out of context for me. Ie: "Silence of the Lambs" as a movie, works! Whereas, buying a Hannibal Lecter, Patrick Bateman, Rorschach or some such doll...?
Gee, let's just blur the line completely, eh? I want a Hitler doll! And it would so cool too, if he comes with props like a Concentration camp.
Cough.
P.S. I dressed-up once as Hitler for Halloween when I was a teenager, but that was different - I wanted to go as the SCARIEST monster I could think of! And someone else had already picked Dracula; all I had to work with was a lot of black clothes - so I had to improvise! But it was okay, don't worry, I got what Hitler deserved; all the other monsters got drunk and chased me around the backyard and attacked me crochet mallots! Good times. :)
Ebert: Sometimes you get truly inspired.
Gilbert - I imagine Kill Bill was success in Japan. The film was a homage to Asian cinema. Pulp Fiction even paraphrased Ezekial 25:17 from a Sonny Chiba flick. I remember at one point, QT was going to create an anime based on Bill and the Vega Brothers. But I digress... I think Pete Seeger said it best, "Plagiarism is the root of all culture."
I have been a fan of Tarantino since I saw Home Alone 2 instead of Reservoir Dogs, as an unknowing college student. I have been a fan of Roger Ebert since At the Movies as a kid. Ebert is my all time favorite litmus test film critic. He loves movies and has the right focus and commentary on the exact same reasons why I love them or hate them. Can't wait to see Inglourious Basterds because of this review at Cannes.
Which Pabst film, and which Clouzot? I've only seen three and two of their films, respectively, and I would like to educate myself before seeing it.
Ebert: If I remembered at all, your question drove the answer from my mind.
Anybody notice that there's already a film called "Inglorious Bastards?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_Bastards
Tarrantino is - he did an interview for the 3 disc (!) DVD.
I wonder if he saw it as "Inglorious Bastards" or as "G.I. Bro."
Lars Von A,
What exactly are you trying to imply by saying "violence in movies should make you hate it"? First of all - why? How is this a rule? And the certainty with which you say it is positively frightening. Where did you get this from?
Neither you nor anyone else has any say in how the artist chooses to portray violence. Leave morality out of this because ultimately that is what assertions like yours come down to. Someone once said "a work of art is neither moral nor immoral. It is either good art or bad art".
I truly love how Tarantino's films are such an event to audiences as well as the industry. This man has a record of consistency that has not been matched by any other director working today. I mean it's like what watching a Scorsese picture come out was thirty years ago. Not that his work has gotten sloppy, just not as consistent. Anyway I love Roger Ebert and I nearly always trust his opinion, I'm really hope this is as well received as his previous work.
As one of the remarkably few that loved Grindhouse, I'm really looking forward to this one.
A bit off the topic, but... what could be more ironic than buying Grindhouse on blu ray? ;) Playing "Pearl Harbor" at Cannes?
Hi Roger,
In your recent review of The Taking of Pelham 123 you wrote:
"Note: Here’s an interesting thing. Looking up my 1974 review ("The Taking of Pelham One Two Three"), I found that four of the characters were named Blue, Green, Gray and Brown. Could it be that when Quentin Tarantino was writing about Mr. White, Mr. Orange, Mr. Blonde and Mr. Pink in "Reservoir Dogs," he was — naw, it’s gotta be just a coincidence."
Here’s another strange coincidence regarding Tarantino and another Walter Matthau film from the 70’s. In "Charley Varrick" (one of my favorite films), John Vernon utters this line of dialogue: "They’ll go to work on you with a blow torch and a pair of pliers."
As you may recall, this exact line was read by Ving Rhames in "Pulp Fiction".
Coincidence?
Looks like Tarantino has a thing for Walter Matthau movies.
Movies and Life, are essentially about one thing – Stories. Take away our memories and we have no life, take away our stories and we have no movie.
I'm sure, as the chronicler of these stories & storytellers - like QT's digestible dialogue films (Pulp, Basterds)or just to juxtapose, Mel's mega motion movies (Apocalypto), you must have known at least once, that voluntary submission (when the senses or the intellect are spellbound) is not the whole story and that abysmally, across the world, that’s where we are stuck – sensory submission never giving way to intellectual inspiration, appreciation never walking with understanding, knowledge never yielding to action. Wherein that’s what is needed, ergo the rise of Moore, and the net documentaries, webconclaves like TED.com, etc.
Politics knows this but so does religion (hmm now is there any difference?). Anyhow, religilously speaking, the prophets were undoubtedly the most effective storytellers ever, for knowing full well the essence of life -that Knowledge IS History...they still called for action.
Today, the collective history as narrated by our modern day prophets and each of their life's vignette put up on the silver screen should aspire to this ultimate test....does the form fall prey to its own hubris..or does it aspire and inspire to rise - albeit something as simple as forgoing passivity.
Otherwise the coming civilization will surely look back at us and our storytellers and say "These were people who carried knowledge around with them, but it did not pass beyond their shoulders"
-Z
Dear Roger,
this is the first time I have ever read your blog. I grew up watching your larger-than-life TV show and the movie industry frankly sucks without it...I hate having to hunt down print reviews instead of your TV show that told it like it is with every new release, including movies I would never pay to watch.
This exegesis of why Tarantino chose Cannes is a great example of the depth you bring to reviewing movies contextually.
And you are my hero for surviving thyroid cancer. I'm still recovering from a messy thyroidectomy, and your voice--through your writing--took away my fear that I would never speak again. I was one of those people who loved the sound of my own voice, and sure enough, it's good as gone. But I still have my pen--you keep reminding of this. I started off reading about your thyroid cancer, then I watched Werner Herzog films because the article about you had a link to your essay about his work--and the films were my relieving (and gratitude-inducing) distraction while I was sick. Then I went into profound mourning for your TV show and the lack of a replacement...what is the movie industry thinking??? Are they crazy not to have an Ebert on TV??? You are more than a hero to aspiring filmmakers. If you ever want to do a show using Mac OS voices and cartoon avatars, I'll be happy to sidekick you!
Ebert: Of course I don't know the details of your surgery, but after my thyroid was removed, I could still speak okay. It was the next surgery, for jaw cancer, that put an end to those days.
Hi Roger.
I saw Inglourious Basterds today. Brilliant!
What a phenomenal scene to open the movie: the colonel and the dairy farmer. Brilliant dialogue to establish the colonel's character, slowly and deliciously played out.
The Hero, the Nazi, and the Girl. All characters that you get invested in.
I didn't like the fate of Shoshanna, but I suppose she had intended that fate anyway when they locked the doors.
Now that's a movie going experience!
Randy
I am the girl in your picture! (along with my friend Daniel) Thanks for putting us up there Mr. Ebert.. we miss Cannes very much. Hope to see you there again next year!!
Best,
Xixi
http://www.facebook.com/celinexixi