| Welcome to RT CD Refugees. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Hateful Eight | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 3 2016, 08:53 AM (1,325 Views) | |
| Kevin Harvey | Jan 4 2016, 07:50 PM Post #16 |
|
Another deserter....
|
We may be on different sides of a similar cycle with QT, vorn. I've found his dialogue strained and arch since Kill Bill (all that cutesy self-referencing), and it wasn't until Inglourious Basterds that I embraced a QT film fully from the get-go (though with the loss of Sally Menke, Django lost me a bit). This one is somewhere in between. I liked a lot of it almost to excess, but will need some time to sit with the rest. Definitely the most classically composed film of the year, along with Bridge of Spies, and I saw it in 70mm, with the overture and intermission, and damn if that opening didn't charm me like a mutherfucker. Guy is dead right about Morricone's score, and Maxime is spot on about the striking efficiency and detail (plus possible implications re: the flashback sequence). As is always the question with QT: is he serious or is he being ironic, and if the latter, how much so? -- and Shay and C-Op are definitely pushing us in the right directions re: that final sequence. The letter is a lie, but to a specific end, so does crumpling it up merely acknowledge the lie, assert it's passing usefulness, or say something darker about the ideals of a mythic figure in American history or about America itself? I thought Bruce Dern was slightly miscast, not quite up to the cartooning of everyone else, but not quite grounding his performance in the reality of the moment either. More like the reality of the set, which takes away some of my conviction re: his character and history. Something vaguely similar in Kurt Russell, who doesn't quite convince from time to time, though maybe that's true for everyone, since if there's one thing for sure, there are some awfully contrived maneuvers in this script. I suppose that should invite us to pay attention and ask "Why?" -- and Maxime has already perhaps afforded some clarity on that front with the line about the flashback and what America "could have been" -- but they certainly add to the sense of discombobulation in the moment. I'm not sure there's no one to root for either, at least from QT's pov. Major Warren clearly has his sympathy, and if the character loses that of the audience when he taunts, provokes and ultimately kills an old man, consider what that man represented. QT's been pretty open about his contempt for racists, the South and all they (secretly or openly) stand for. Remember his comments about Ford a few years ago? Again, the question might be, serious or ironic? And just how much? Funny how QT is one of the only ones who can get everyone involved on the forums. Nice to read so many comments from so many of our regulars. Thanks, all. |
![]() |
|
| YancySkancy | Jan 4 2016, 10:47 PM Post #17 |
|
Administrator
|
A little bit SPOILERY===== The great thing about Tarantino is that, love him or leave him, he makes the films he wants, the way he wants. Thanks I suppose to the Weinsteins, he doesn't have to worry about focus groups or development execs pulling him toward formula. Maybe he has his own formula at this point, but that's a separate issue. A three-hour, 70mm, ultra-violent Western mystery set mostly in one room and peopled mostly by middle-aged actors with little guaranteed box office appeal? Sure, Q, whatever you want. I had a high old time. Nitpicks: Hard to believe the writer of such tricky narratives as Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown felt he needed to resort to narration to finesse a transition (as he also did for a sequence in Inglourious Basterds). And his celebrated ear for dialogue can be a bit pedestrian when he's not exercising his loquaciousness. Oh, and would I have liked the film just as much with fewer head shots and blood splatter? Sure. On the other hand, witnessing that carnage undeniably adds suspense (or at least dread) to later scenes -- shots that don't seem otherwise charged have you flinching in anticipation of sudden mayhem. Cheap, maybe, but effective. The "everybody's got a secret" aspect may shortchange a couple of characters who actually don't have a secret (notably Kurt Russell's John Ruth), but otherwise keeps the mystery humming and provides some neat surprises. The actors clearly consider this material to be heaven. As others have suggested, Samuel L. Jackson, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Walton Goggins get to shine the brightest. As for the effectiveness of using 70mm for a primarily set-bound story -- "Cine-Room-a"? -- as I expected it's a non-issue. Tarantino and Robert Richardson approach the "problem" cinematically (duh), and only those who think "dialogue-driven" means "theatrical" will think otherwise. (This is not to say the material wouldn't work as a play; I imagine it would, despite some special effects challenges.) The racial politics are resonant without seeming like blatant zeitgeist pandering (Tarantino's blunt language and sexual violence make sure of that). The Lincoln Letter; the wartime pasts of the Jackson, Goggins and Bruce Dern characters; the congenial race-mixing of Minnie's Haberdashery (pre-massacre); and the amusing reveal that tips Jackson to be wary of "Mexican Bob" (Demien Bachir) -- all these touches give thematic weight to what might otherwise have been an entertaining but rather empty Agatha Christie puzzle. PRO |
![]() |
|
| YancySkancy | Jan 4 2016, 10:56 PM Post #18 |
|
Administrator
|
While I short-changed Kurt Russell a bit in my write-up, I would like to single out a couple of nice moments he had, both involving the Lincoln Letter -- the way he choked up at the reference to "old Mary Todd," and his stricken expression when he learns the letter's a fake. As an aside, I'm not really getting the John Wayne comparisons some are making. Yes, he says "That'll be the day" at one point, and a Wayne-ish inflection surfaces slightly a time or two, but nothing else about that character, from his look to his lingo to his temperament, suggest the Duke to me. Critics patting themselves on the back for remembering his Wayne impersonation in Big Trouble in Little China? |
![]() |
|
| Kevin Harvey | Jan 6 2016, 12:45 PM Post #19 |
|
Another deserter....
|
The thing that tickled my conscience in the film's second half is maybe the mismatch between actual achievement and intent. The moody, atmospheric build of the opening-through-intermission is perhaps betrayed by the second-half reveal of a scenario that doesn't quite have the heft to carry the film's apparent aspirations to philosophical, socio-historical, allegorical, or even dramatic significance. There's something altogether too little about it, too petty and unimportant, which Tarantino tries to counter by cranking up the effects (e.g., slow-mo, distorted sound and general gruesomeness) and austerity (via pacing and composition), but I'm not sure the film ever quite escapes this very earthbound sense of smallness. That last scene does the most to push us higher, and maybe a second viewing will lock all the intended effects into place, but for now I don't quite know that it escapes the confines of its basic scenario. It's still one of the most patient and involving films of the year and my curiosity and interest were constantly engaged -- if not always by the story itself, then certainly by the choices made in so many other areas (seriously, the Morricone score is incredible and I can't overstate the effectiveness of the "Roadshow" version's first half-hour), so there's no taking away its basic achievement, but I do wonder if some of these negative spins have more than a little something to them. On a different note: I don't think claims of the film's "theatrical" nature are either entirely uncomplimentary or unwarranted. It's a very theatrical script, in a setting well-suited to a play, with performances pitched to the cheap-seats. None of which is to take anything away from the obvious visual accomplishment: it's just a fact. Anyone saying it's highly a theatrical piece isn't wrong. They just better not be saying it's uncinematic. :) I'm debating whether or not to get back out for a second Roadshow viewing before they pack it up. Can't imagine the movie without that overture. Still, I am curious to see what the other version is like, and whether the decrease in scale is a help or a hindrance to the experience. Guess we'll see what happens in the next few days. |
![]() |
|
| YancySkancy | Jan 6 2016, 01:42 PM Post #20 |
|
Administrator
|
The roadshow version wasn't available to me, unless I wanted a three or four hour drive (I think Nashville and St. Louis were the closest venues). The DCP looked quite good, but it was a little odd seeing that slight curvature without a similarly curved screen. Dr. R: Yeah, "theatrical" doesn't bother me as an adjective to describe aspects of the project at all; just the suggestion that somehow 70mm isn't suitable for projects that have a theatrical nature, or is wasted on them. I think I see what you're saying about the "smallness" of the the second half -- much of the plot starts to focus on revealing what's behind the mystery story, and it turns out to be a brother and sister thang that has no obvious thematic tie-in to all the racial and social themes. But I do think maybe that last scene helps pull the theme back in focus, but yeah, I'd probably need another look to refine my thoughts on this too. |
![]() |
|
| Kevin Harvey | Jan 6 2016, 02:52 PM Post #21 |
|
Another deserter....
|
I actually agree with all your comments, Yancy, and if my last post seemed more specifically than generally addressed, it was only due to placement. :) Really I just wanted to better articulate some things that got lost or skipped over in my first comment. Too distracted by all the great stuff everyone else was saying, I guess. :) (I'll also stop talking up the Roadshow because it's kind of a dick move on my part when not everybody can get to it.) Looking at your comments about Russell now: I think you're right about the moments you singled out for praise (and there were many others) and I like him as an actor generally. There's something warm, frank and available in him that other actors can't so easily channel. Does make it a bit weird to see him in such ugly roles as QT likes to write for him, though. OTOH, I think there's something more casual (for lack of a better word) than committed in his approach to character. I like him, and I like watching him, but he doesn't always convince me that he is who he says he is, especially in a Tarantino movie. Re: the Wayne comparison, it's actually a specific callback to Death Proof, in which he offers a fairly sustained and intentional imitation of the Duke out on the front porch of the bar in the first half. It apparently arose as something of a joke, but QT liked it so much he kept it in. Doubtless the same jokey-serious continuum was repeatedly traversed to find the right pitch for Hateful Eight. But it's there, and it's intentional. It's just a bit vague because, again, I don't think Russell's commitment to character is precise enough to make it land with any kind of pronounced or satisfactory thump. (And QT's commitment to reality is similarly loose/free-wheeling, so whatever's the most fun, etc.) I wouldn't hire him as an impressionist, anyway, but it certainly lent a little extra something to the performance. |
![]() |
|
| YancySkancy | Jan 6 2016, 03:27 PM Post #22 |
|
Administrator
|
Weird that I blanked on Russell's John Wayne impression in Death Proof, since I've seen that films four times now, I think. Still, the impression originated in Big Trouble in Little China (which I have NOT seen, oddly enough), and I think if Russell had been going for a true Duke impression as part of his Hateful Eight character it would be a lot more obvious than it is in the finished film (as I've heard it is in Big Trouble). I personally heard very little of his Duke in John Ruth, to the point of being surprised that so many reviews are mentioning it. A little dab'll do ya, I guess, or I'm going deaf. I'd probably hire him as an impressionist though, as long as he only did Duke or Elvis. At any rate, John Ruth doesn't give him quite as many colors to play as Stuntman Mike did -- at least he got to be charming and menacing and a big baby in that one. Ruth is all bluster except for those little grace notes we were talking about in the Lincoln Letter scenes. |
![]() |
|
| Continental Op | Jan 6 2016, 04:17 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Fugee Emeritus
|
It could just be QT being cute, but in the roadshow viewing (to be that jerk, like Dr R ;) ), it does come right after the 15/20 minute intermission, for what that's worth. "Welcome back...erstwhile..." :) |
![]() |
|
| YancySkancy | Jan 6 2016, 05:02 PM Post #24 |
|
Administrator
|
Yeah, I figured. I suppose it might have been less objectionable after an intermission, but I'm still inclined to think narration is a thing that should be established at the beginning of a film, not pop up at the halfway point or later. Not a rule exactly; just a preference. |
![]() |
|
| Mister Jiggy, Esq. | Jan 6 2016, 09:15 PM Post #25 |
|
Swingin' on the Flippity-Flop
|
Yancy, for what it's worth, I didn't pick up on any Wayne impression from Russell and I saw the film the same day I watched McKlintock! - a film where I think Duke was giving a Duke impression. |
![]() |
|
| Kevin Harvey | Jan 7 2016, 08:14 AM Post #26 |
|
Another deserter....
|
Watched an interview last night in which Russell claimed the performance began as a full-blown Wayne impression, but Tarantino gradually worked with him to ease it back and "find his own voice" as it were. All that's left is what Yancy already mentioned:
Yup. That's it. |
![]() |
|
| Shay Casey | Jan 8 2016, 01:13 PM Post #27 |
|
Blingin' for Our Savior
|
Interesting analysis here about Hateful Eight and its relationship to modern racism: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/01/08/the...jango-unchained |
![]() |
|
| YancySkancy | Jan 8 2016, 01:46 PM Post #28 |
|
Administrator
|
Good stuff! |
![]() |
|
| Kevin Harvey | Jan 8 2016, 02:51 PM Post #29 |
|
Another deserter....
|
Key, meet lock. And I'm not even finished reading yet! Y'know, I've been suspicious of Devin Faraci ever since he dumped on The Wind Rises (FCH got it right), but he's certainly winning some points back here, not to mention greatly clarifying some of those "contrived maneuvers" I was talking about. |
![]() |
|
| Shay Casey | Jan 8 2016, 03:36 PM Post #30 |
|
Blingin' for Our Savior
|
Faraci is a strong film critic and analyst who sometimes lets his personal biases get the best of him (don't we all?). Anti-anime sentiment is one of his blind spots, so I don't pay him much mind on the Miyazaki stuff. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Critics Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:43 PM Jul 10
|