Inglourious Basterds

In the 5 years I've been doing this, there are few major working filmmakers left that I have yet to really talk about. While I reviewed Grindhouse, I didn't really discuss Quentin Tarantino. Well, that changes here. After breaking out with Pulp Fiction, and following it up with Jackie Brown (a film slowly gaining the esteem it deserves), I feel Tarantino has been off his game. The Kill Bills didn't quite work for me - although I am in the minority of preferring Vol. 2 - and Death Proof was his career low point. And yet, much like Scorsese, even a bad Tarantino film is a film worth watching and discussing. So where does that leave us with Inglourious Basterds, his decade in the making WWII project? Well, I am of the opinion that he is back on the top of his game. Here is a film second only to Pulp Fiction in his canon, and it is a film filled to the brim with ideas, characters, and pure entertainment of the kind only Tarantino seems able to deliver.

Basterds is a film about a lot of things, and while I know Tarantino would like people to simply enjoy his films first and foremost, I feel that at the heart of the film there are two issues worth examining. Namely, the influence of cinema on the world, and the power of language. The second item first: this is not an action film, but a dialog-action film. The most tense beats don't come from shootouts, but rather from the words that lead to the shootouts. The man who uses words most to his advantage is Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Nicknamed "The Jew Hunter," Landa sees himself more as a detective, and he uses words to find what he wants. Take the opening - perhaps best - scene, in which Landa interrogates a farmer about the whereabouts of his Jewish neighbors. Landa chooses his words oh so carefully, using them to gain the upper hand in the conversation. He seems to derive pleasure from being the most informed person in the room, and he likes to doll out what he knows slowly, as to let it dawn on his prey just what he knows. He could easily come into a room shouting and blasting, but instead he takes the most pleasure from methodically telling the farmer what he knows. This is something he does throughout the movie and it never ceases to be thrilling. We are never sure what to make of Landa because he seems to pick and choose what should be said when. When he finally lays everything out, you may be surprised where his true allegiences lie (or perhaps not).

And in a film where the words are so important, it is interesting to note how multilingual the film is. English is spoken only sparingly, and there is French, German, Italian, and maybe other languages used throughout. At one point, Landa asks to switch from French to English, and we think it's simply a silly way for Tarrantino to make it easier on the audience. Not at all. It is a very deliberate tactic used by Landa, and the realization of that fact is one of the film's many powerful moments. The power of language clearly has a hierarchy in the film, as evidenced by the titular Basterds not knowing any other languages. When it comes time for them to enact a plan that could end the war, it is reliant on them knowing another language. Most of them speak only English, and a few can speak broken Italian. This puts them at a major disadvantage in the film's climax. It is refreshing to see a film examine the ways power can play out in a multilingual world.

The other point of interest is the cinema itself. Tarantino loves to reference other films in his work, and here is no exception. From the famous open door shot in The Searchers, to the use of classic Ennio Morricone scores, this is as much a Western at heart as it is a war film. And yet, that is not enough for Tarantino. Here he actually uses his film as a way to comment on the power of film as a medium. Much of the film takes place in a French cinema house during a world premiere. The film in question, a Nazi propaganda film, is used to demonstrate the way film can be used to form opinions. Much like language, Tarantino is saying that cinema itself can be a powerful tool in how power is delegated. And on the flip side, film can be the ultimate catharsis. Young Shosanna Dreyfus, whose family was killed by Landa, creates her own film to splice into the propaganda film during the premiere. Forcing the Nazis in attendance to watch it gives her a moment of power over those who have tried to take power away from her. More than any other thing he has done, Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino's love letter to cinema.

But is the film itself entertaining? On an intellectual level, clearly. But for the average audience, I it might be too much to take. It's a two and a half hour movie with very little English dialog. It was sold as a Brad Pitt action film, when in reality his Basterds are a small part of a bigger picture. The film is at least 90% people talking to each other. And yet, there seems like a lot here that people can enjoy as well. The dialog is often excruciatingly tense, the violence - when it's there - is visceral, and the ending is an amazing and unexpected payoff. People around me seemed dumbfounded by something Tarantino does at the end, and when they began to grasp that he had indeed gone there, surprised laughter started erupting around the theater. The payoff is well worth it, it just depends on how willing you are to go along with the film in order to get there. For me, it's probably the most interesting and exciting picture of the year so far, and one I hope to revist again soon.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Buton

I consider myself to be far more patient with long movies than most. It's my belief that if a movie needs three hours to tell its story, I'm happy to indulge it. Indeed, what a delight it can be to stumble across a movie you wish would never end? So involved in the world it has created, you could explore it for hours. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is three hours long, and on the face of it, it certainly sounds like it warrants that run time. This is the entire life story of a man, and no ordinary man at that. So I was more than happy to allow it the time it felt it needed to unravel its story. Perhaps the thing that struck me most upon leaving the cinema, then, was how little it did with that extended run time, and how the length seriously damaged what could have been one of the very best films of the year.

The premise is pretty straightforward, yet endlessly intriguing: what would a man's life be like if he was born old and died young? Apparently it would be almost exactly the same as any other life, save for a few minor details. Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) may look old when he is born, but he is a child at heart. And he may look like a kid when he's dying, but he's truly senile. Much of the hardships and benefits of living a life backwards are completely glossed over. Aside from a few "You sure are old to be doing X" comments, nothing is really made of his condition (disease?) by others. Perhaps the only part of his life - and the film - affected by this peculiarity is his realization that he would be dooming whoever he loves to take care of him in his final years. Which is pretty much exactly how it goes for any elderly person. Indeed, it's a premise not fully realized. It seems instead that it is merely a device used to examine one man's life. And what a dull man that is.

Button experiences no major moments in his life that warrant a cinematic telling. Much of his life is spent listening to other people tell him their stories, many of which seem far more interesting than his. Perhaps that's the point, but it sure isn't worth making a three hour movie about. The whole cast is very solid. Front and center in Button's life is Daisy (Cate Blanchett). Blanchett gives a great, understated performance. She relies on no gimmicks, no big moments of emotion. She simply inhabits a character, and it works well. Taraji P. Henson plays Button's adopted mother, and she brings warmth and humor to the role. And the fact that she is working at a retirement home allows for some amusing moments between Benjamin and the older folks. Key to the movie, however, is of course Brad Pitt. Pitt plays Button for almost all of his life. The more I reflect on it, the more I really appreciated his work as the physically older, mentally younger Button. It must be pretty hard to play both old and young at the same time, but he's very convincing at it. But again, he is given no real moments to shine, either, so it's easy to forget about him in the midst of all the technical wizardry on display.

In many ways, I would argue that David Fincher is the visual wunderkind of film making today. His films are so visually beyond anything else out there, yet they never draw attention to themselves. Watch the special features on the Zodiac DVD and you'll be blown away by how much CGI is used in a seemingly visual effects free film. Here he steps up his game in stunning ways. The creation of Benjamin Button as a character is mind boggling. I have no idea how they did it, nor are there any seams in the creation that might allow you to figure it out. That can't possibly be Brad Pitt, but yet it certainly can't be someone else, either. And the cinematography from start to finish is perhaps the most striking, enchanting, and beautiful of the year. In spite of how little money Fincher's films usually make at the box office, he keeps getting huge budgets. As a film fan, there are few things to be more thankful for, as he knows how to spend every dollar to make the best visual experience possible.

The mundane story is what drags down an otherwise enchanting film. So many great themes are brought up, a number of asides from supporting characters are delightful (especially the story of the clockmaker who made his clock run backwards), and the visuals are stunning. Yet it's that three hour run time that ultimately undermines it all. All those things matter very little if you can't get into the story. Button's life is simply not a very eventful one, but it should have been. How is he never taken to a doctor once? Even if not for his obvious problem, did he never get sick once, or break a bone? Surely then a doctor would see him and want to study him. I feel like this film didn't explore the concept nearly as well as it could, which is a shame considering how good everything else about it is.

Burn After Reading

Burn After Reading, the new Coen Brothers movie, plays like the comedy mirror to their own No Country for Old Men, with a dash of The Big Lebowski thrown in for good measure. A group of dimwitted personal trainers (Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt, and Richard Jenkins) discover a disk in their gym with what looks to be secret CIA files on it. The disk belongs to Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), who doesn't even know that it is missing (or that the disk of information even exists), so when the personal trainers contact him in order to collect a reward of some sort, things turn sour and all hell breaks loose. What follows is mayhem, death, a few laughs, and a morally ambiguous ending. Pretty much what you'd expect from the Coens.

If you've been keeping track, you probably remember that I was not the biggest fan of their Oscar winning picture from last year. I came to appreciate it as time wore on, but it is not the classic many might have you believe. Which is a shame because I really love these guys and their offbeat filmography. On paper, Burn After Reading looks like a return to familiar territory for the brothers. Viewing the film, however, it became slowly apparent that this was not going to be the knockout that so many of their earlier films were. Indeed, by film's end I was a bit disappointed. Not overwhelmingly so, thankfully, but enough to make me a bit sad. Will the Coens ever achieve the same lofty heights they hit with Fargo, Lebowski, Barton Fink, and others?

The film starts off surprisingly slowly, introducing us to all the players. This is problem number one: there are too many characters at the outset, and too few are immediately interesting. Cox and his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) take up a good majority of the opening scenes, yet they have very little spark to their characters. They are two bitter, angry people that you would not expect a comedy to be centered around. Thankfully just when you think you can't take any more of these two George Clooney shows up to brighten things up a bit. His Harry is a twitchy, odd duck. Cheating on his wife with Katie, he also cruises the internet looking for other woman to fool around with. He is a fun character, but for a long time we don't understand why he is even in the film. After a good twenty or thirty minutes we are finally introduced to the Hardbodies employees, and this is when the film finally takes off.

McDonrmand is a ball of energy as Linda, a woman who just wants a couple simple procedures done to make her appearance better. Discovering the secret disk may be exactly the ticket she needs in order to pay for those procedures. The true revelation is Pitt, an actor who rarely disappoints but is especially great here in what is easily his funniest role. Pitt plays Chad, a man who takes dimwittedness to rarely seen levels. His attempts to negotiate with Cox over the return of the disk fail repeatedly, yet he can never understand why. Chad feels almost like he is from a different movie, especially when he is interacting with the dry Malkovich, and as he cuts a swath through the story he leaves behind nothing but charm and laughs. Sad that he has relatively small screen time compared to the rest of the cast - a few more scenes with him would have gone a long way, especially early on.

The film has a strong climax, and the abundance of characters makes sense by the end, but that opening half is far too slow and dull. Also, I suspect many might be annoyed by the glib, offhanded way the film is concluded, making the loose ends of No Country seem like nothing. When this film does hit the right notes, it can be very funny. Yet it is not nearly funny enough, nor as interesting and insightful as most of the Coen Brother's previous films. It all adds up to a lot of nothing. I know the Coens had some purpose to this darkly misanthropic comedy, yet I can not figure out what it is. My silver lining is that a some of their films have failed to impress me upon early viewings, only to expand with passing time - even No Country. I suspect a second viewing here will illuminate some of the subtler points and make me appreciate what felt like an otherwise malformed film. But until that second viewing, all I am left with is a film that came close to being good but just missed that mark.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a two hour and forty minute talky Western that spoils the climax in its title. It's a very deliberately paced, contemplative film with only a few scenes of action. It's a film that has been "sitting on the shelf" for over a year. In short (a word this film is not familiar with in any way, as indicated by the title choice) it has everything going against it. So how on Earth did it turn out so spectacularly?

I'm not sure who we can thank for this cut of the film, as it's been rumored that the studio and director Andrew Dominik have been quarreling over the final cut for a year, but whoever it is, they did a fabulous job. They were able to create a film that doesn't make "long" synonymous with "slow." It's a film that plays out almost like a novel, complete with a narrator giving us inside details on the characters, life at the time, politics, and whatever else might set the mood. It's not the kind of film that is meant to entertain you in a surface way, instead trying to evoke certain feelings and emotions that will last long after you've left the theater. If that's the kind of experience you want to get from your movie-going adventures, then this movie is for you. If not, 3:10 to Yuma is an equally enjoyable Western that operates on the opposite spectrum of the genre.

One can't talk about this film without first noting its strongest asset: cinematography. You'd be hard-pressed to find better cinematography in a film this year, as DP Roger Deakins has crafted a sight to behold. Whether it be James wandering through a field, or people traversing through the snowy mountains, every shot is stunning. On top of that, these shots serve to set the mood. Many wide shots of James alone in big open spaces help to illustrate how lonely and shuttered off from the rest of the world he feels. Ford, on the other hand, seems often to be so tightly framed that he feels uncomfortable, like the world is pressing in around him, suffocating him. It's a visually spectacular film, almost reason enough to see it.

Thankfully, the visuals are not the only reason to see Assassination. Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck both give quite possibly their career best performances. Pitt is able to make James frightening and menacing, while also adding hints of sorrow and longing for another life. He's a conflicted man who ultimately receives our pity when the titular action occurs. Affleck, on the other hand, has created a role that should finally launch him out of his brother's shadow and into the forefront of Hollywood. His take on Robert Ford is truly a sight to behold. You may often find yourself asking what is this character thinking? His shifty eyes and cracking voice make you question him from the get go. What is he after, exactly? What are these big things he thinks he is destined for? To call him the film's villain would be misleading, as there isn't a villain per se. He is a man who is thrust into a world that he simply wasn't ready for, and as a result he did something that ruined his life and many others' forever. We grow to dislike him as we watch him, but the film's final twenty minutes attempt to pardon him, reminding us that he was only human. He sees the errs of his way, and is forced to live with that for the remainder of his life. It's surprisingly poetic.

This is a film that feels unfair to point out what is great, because everything is as good as it could possibly be. Yes, the writing, acting, directing, and cinematography are excellent - but so is the sound design, with such fine attention to details. So is the score, perhaps the year's best with its simple, melancholy piano cues. So is the art design. So are the costumes. You get my drift. There is no weak point to be found, assuming you are open to this sort of tale. It is a rewarding experience to those who like to be sucked in to a mood, to a story. Few movies can warrant a length much over two hours, but this is one of the few that I would have gladly sat through another hour had there been more to tell. Simply stunning all around.