Printable View
And also, that scene with the smoking out of Lt. Hicox has real similarities with a scene in Barry Lyndon where Captain Potzdorf (Hardy Kruger) says:
Sergeant! This man is unter arrest!
Barry replies in shock: Under arrest? Captain Potzdorf, I am a British officer!
Potzdorf: You are a LIAR! You're an imposter. You're a deserter. I suspected you this morning. You say your Uncle is the British Ambassador to Berlin with the ridiculous name of "O'Grady"..
FYI heads up!
Quentin Tarantino will be on Charlie Rose tonight. Check local PBS for broadcast times.
Are you gonna watch it? Give us a fine transcript? Yes?
Thanks cinemabon.
You can watch all Charlie Rose interviews online one or two days after they appear. Just go to his website http://www.charlierose.com/schedule/
Click on Guests and then on "recent guests."
The August 21, 2009 Charlie Rose interview, coinciding with the US release date of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, which went for the hour, showed Tarantino in fine form and ought to be a nice living record for students of his passions and methods to draw on for statements about theses at this stage of the director's career. The interview will be available in its entirety on the Charlie Rose site as are all the previous QT appearances on the show; I'll put up a link to this new one here when it's available.
QT made clear that he revels in this opportunity to present his viewpoint and methods in an intelligent context with Charlie Rose to such an extent that he even looks forward to the next post-relase Charlie Rose exposition "during the writing process." This is Tarantino's ninth Charlie Rose appearance, and four of these, done in 1994, 1997, 2004, and 2009, are hour-long appearances coinciding with releases of his movies.
Tarantino put a big emphasis on the fact that he's a writer-director, that the writing process is central to his work. He said he'll never do an adaptation of somebody else's book again as he did with Elmore Leonard in Jackie Brown, though he noted that the "houty-toity" film critics (I think he was referring specifically to opinons in Film Comment) have decided Jackie Brown is his best work and the rest of his oeuvre is irrelevant and to be avoided. It's hard to face the "Everest' of the blank page, he said, and a director can keep going more smoothly and turn out more films by working from other sources, but then will wind up wondering where his "voice" has gone. He prefers the struggle, and plans to go on with it. But Tarantino repeated that he plans to stop making movies at sixty and write novels from then on.
Apropos of a brief pastiche of excerpts from his films at the outset of the interview, he expressed satisfaction with what he has done, said he's mainly competing with himself -- just as his critics say (they question whether anything else comes up to Pulp Fiction) -- but says that's a good place to be.
He compared himself indirectly with David Fincher, said Fincher is one of the important American filmmakers of his generation -- but is not a writer-director. (I kind of wish he'd mentioned that Paul Thomas Anderson is. Now there's some competition. But he refrained from comparing himself explicitly with any other director alive or dead, except to mention a certain passage in a film that he said he could never possibly equal.)
Similarly, still describing the importance of the writing process in his work and how that unfolds, he stressed that his screenplays grow not out of storyline but character, and that the characters write the movie, and he follows them wherever they take him. That is an explanation of the disjointed structure of Tarantino's films. Obviously character is built out of dialogue. I'd add: he has been both praised and condemned for slavishly following the unfolding of his dialogue whereever it takes him and at whatever length. You will see this particularly in the David Carradine-Uma Thurman (The Snake Charmer and The Bride) dialogue in Kill Bill: Vol 2, and in the underground cantina dialogue in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS in which the Engish film critic Lt. Archie Hicox posing as a Nazi officer is smoked out. Incidentally I forgot to note that Michael Fassbender, who plays Hicox (he is half German, half Irish), stars in (and starved himself for) the role of Bobby Sands in English artist Steve McQueen's powerful film Hunger (NYFF 2008).
An important pont: what about thematic undercurrents, "meta-stories" or "subtexts"? In a question about this from Charlie, Tarantino said at the Sundance workshop he did for Reservoir Dogs, the Sundance folks said "you think you know everything but you don't know this," and pushed him to analyze his subtexts, so he did it for a relatively innocuous scene of the movie. He found a lot of stuff going on in it that was interesting, mainly about father figures. Then, according to Tarantino, he said, "Okay, fine; I get it. Now I don't ever have to do this again." In his creative process he finds it essential to focus exclusively on the fundamental linear progress of the screenplay, and let the undercurrents take care of themselves; notice them later on, after the movie's been made (and he noted it will be at least three years before he himself can judge how INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS fints in and rates within his oeuvre). His process is intuitive, not analytical or self-conscious. And it's because it's this way, he asserted, that he comes up with screenplays nobody else could have written.
I found this very interesting because it is an answer to something I say in my reveiw about what I found was a major subtext or meta-story of the film, the identity theme: "The ingenuity and parallelisms of altered or reversed identity are so fascinating one might wish identity were made more consciously resonant as a theme." He just doesn't work that way.
There's a lot more, but I've already gone on at too great length. I hope others will watch the interview and can add their comments (Johann...?
Much thanks for that. I'll check it out.
Here's a quote from Eli Roth, from an interview Peter Howell did with him at Cannes on the deck of the Carlton Hotel, overlooking the French Riviera:
Q: You also got to do some directing for the film. You did Nation's Pride, the Nazi Propaganda film that screens within Inglourious Basterds. How was that?
ELI: I felt it was switching gears. It's so hard to come out of the state of psychosis and depression and anger I worked myself up into for that beating scene (as The Bear Jew). But actually doing Nation's Pride was the best thing. It forced me to stop. To make it, it had to be real...I want the Nazis rolling in their grave, thinking, "God, the movie that's the most-seen Nazi propaganda movie is directed by a Jew"
And the best part of the interview, which I feel is the perspective people should take when watching Basterds:
ELI: I felt like I had to be a Jewish Warrior. But this whole thing about kosher porn, although it's a Jewish fantasy, the more I think about it, it's a universal fantasy. Who wouldn't want to go back in time and kill evil and change the future to save millions? You think about it with September 11th, if we could go back and kill those hijackers who crashed those planes. It takes an artist like Tarantino to make a movie about fantasies like this, that don't have to abide by the rules of history.
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is a rare movie for me because I didn't like it, I found it distasteful, and it brutalized and trivialized an important historical period in our World. Nevertheless, Tarantino is at the top of his game with brilliant psychological scenes full of fascinating dialogue and acting that has been rarely brought to the screen in contemporary films. I found the ultimate dispostion of most of the characters, abit far-fetched and took away some of the conflicted satisfaction I found in watching THE GREAT ESCAPE (1963). The characters were captivating if not well-rounded personalities and as such created an stereotypical context that permitted the black and white ravaging slaughter that appeared on screen, unlike Steven Spielberg's SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993). The trailers also did a disservice to the actual nature of this film which I found compelling and the storyline was solid and edited well together. Overall, this is not the movie I wanted to see, but I have to admit that it was technically well done and deserves its laudatory comments for those who accept the brutality and the two-dimensional characters and conflicted outcomes of this movie.
I do not agree with any of this. [I am replying to Johann's last two posts, not tabuno's, which makes good sense, even though he takes a different stance on the movie than I have.] And the thinking Roth presents is confused. Revenge has nothing to do with changing the course of events, and as I cited earlier, people believe with some justification that revenge simply continues the cycle of violence. The phrase "kill evil' is thoughtless. "Kill the hijackers?" No, that is not a mentality I endorse, of "preventively" going around and killing people, on the theory that you are preventing them from doing something, as in US and Israeli drone attacks. However, in the case of that series of events, capturing the men and preventing their action would have certainly changed the course of history. But preemptively killing people is itself a form of terrorism.
I don't think Eli Roth is the best advert for Tarantino or for this movie. It has been commented not without reason that the movies Roth has himself directed are terrible. (One would hope that as violent as Tarantino gets sometimes, he would never veer into HOSTEL or CABIN FEVER territory.) Various bloggers and some reviewers have said that as "the Bear Jew" Roth is terrible in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS too, but maybe it's hard to judge that role objectively. It's interesting though that Roth got to direct "Nation's Priide," the movie-within-a-movie Nazi propaganda film. Now how good that is, is another question. We don't really get to see very much of it (and i think that has been criticized). Whether it is a nice irony -- or another example of Tarantino-esque illogic -- that a Jew got to direct a Nazi propaganda film is still another question.
I have to admit that it was technically well done and deserves its laudatory comments for those who accept the brutality and the two-dimensional characters and conflicted outcomes of this movie. (tabuno)
I went into the theater after having decided to forget the amorality and shallowness of Tarantino's cinema. I went into the theater to appreciate the film on purely cinematic terms, the way I was able to appreciate say... Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will or other morally dubious films like City of God. I went into the theater to appreciate the film as a sensory experience. I agree with you that the film is technically well done (did you have any doubts? It's "QT"). Making this film requires a certain chutzpah, no? I mean to use the word with both its positive and negative connotations. It's an affront, a provocation of sorts.
On the other hand, I was simply not prepared for the longueurs. I don't remember KILL BILL feeling this drawn out. Not a typical response to a movie, not from me, to sit there thinking: "get the fucking thing over with!" chapter after chapter. Not of the set pieces compares to at least two from Kill Bill, in my opinion.
he noted that the "houty-toity" film critics (I think he was referring specifically to opinons in Film Comment) have decided Jackie Brown is his best work and the rest of his oeuvre is irrelevant and to be avoided.
Funny that just a few posts ago I wrote yesterday (or was it the day before?) that the only Tarantino movie I would rewatch (maybe) is JACKIE BROWN.
Oddly enough, it was the "long sequences" with a lot of narrative and the psychological interplay that I found the most compelling of the movie, these were brilliant scenes with the characters playing a sophisticated cat and mouse that required serious acting performances and a great narrative script. I was immersed into the intense drama that was playing in the mind - and I wasn't ever interesting in getting the scene over with as much as savoring the anticipation of how it was going to turn out, my emotions on high alert, anxious with fear and hope.
I respect your opinion. For me, most of the time, the scenes induced boredom. Perhaps the lack of character dimensionality (I mean these characters were precisely who we thought they were) made me lose interest midway through some scenes.
Both of your are right. That's why I said the sequences are excruciaing, but also note that it is in his long set pieces that Tarantino excels. You can't really say that the scene between The Bride and Snake Charmer does not have longeurs; it's replete with them. Actually the basement cantina smoking-out sequence in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is more truly suspenseful, because it is electric with the tension of the resistance agent, Hicox, struggling to maintain his cover. In the Charlie Rose interview, Tarantino spoke of haveing been accused of his films not having suspense,and making a conscious effort to creat suspense in this one. But his greatest strength is also his greatest weakness. His free-flowing dialogue is where his genius emerges, but it can also weigh like a dead weight on any and all viewers who are not in on the game, who do not see the fun of it. I do not think that boredom is a sure indication of failure. Boredom may simply mean that you are not on the wavelength. Antonioni's L'AVVENTURA certainly had enormous longeurs when it first was watched in theaters. But then he was rewareded at Cannes for developing "a new cinematic language." And he had.
Looks like Harvey and Bob have a good one, and I can see now the trailer with Brad Pitt presenting a men-on-a-mission theme was shrewdly chosen to draw in the audience. DISTRICT 9 was also reported holding well for its genre.Quote:
BOX OFFICE MOJO - NEWS BULLETIN
Sunday, August 23, 2009
'Inglourious Basterds' opened with a bang atop the weekend box office. Grossing an estimated $37.6 million, it hit the high end for World War 2 movies and for late August, and it delivered Quentin Tarantino’s biggest debut...
Brandon Gray Reports:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2611&p=l.htm
I thought the "longeurs" (french for long scene?) were quite savory, not boring at all. But I can see how someone would be bored.
Tabuno: "emotions on high alert"- great turn of phrase there.
That's what I get out of every Tarantino film.
That's actually what I want out of every film, but so few directors are able to pull it off.
I think the final sequence in the movie theatre with Hitler and Goebbels is absolutely awesome. The celluloid piled up and ignited, the ending just DESTROYS. Loved it. Totally enthralling for me. Made the movie.
Actually, (I had to look it up, thanks a lot Oscar) the definition is: a long, boring, tedious and usually tawdry or vulgar passage. (meretricious).
I think you used this word on me once before, as I recall... hoity-toity indeed! (which by the way, means to be pretentious or to put on airs)
If I may put in my two cents, "longueurs," hoity-toity though it may be, is still a perfectly good word. In French its first meaning is simply "length." It's #two meaning is "long, boring passages."
People differ on whether I.B has them. I say the two big set pieces feel excrusiatingly long at times, but they are not really boring, because they are consciously and successfully suspenseful. The Guardian (UK) review, which is really nasty, says "Longeurs abound." But another UK website, "The List," which has a QT interview, says the opposite:I thought, maybe Rex Reed would pan the movie, but he does not:Quote:
Tarantino’s efforts have paid off. Clocking in at just shy of two-and-a-half hours and showcasing a series of extended set-pieces, Inglourious Basterds nevertheless feels tightly packed. Intertwining three storylines knotted together by a plot to assassinate high command of the Third Reich at the premiere of a Nazi propaganda film at a cinema in occupied Paris, Tarantino’s latest has none of the indulgent longeurs that occasionally deflated Bills 1 and 2, nor does it suffer from the (admittedly purposely) uneven pacing that virtually ground his half of Grindhouse to a halt. In terms of style, tone and the punch it packs, Inglourious Basterds is closer to Tarantino’s more cohesive earlier films, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, which is doubly surprising given its prolonged scrappy development.
If you say the "Longueurs were quite savory," as Johann does, they you're saying, as I would, that some moments feel excruciatingly drawn out, but they're so suspenseful that it's a good pain.Quote:
Like all Quentin Tarantino movies, Inglourious Basterds is exasperating, absurd, cruel, cynical, sneeringly arrogant, racist, elitist, naïvely derivative and viciously funny. It is also one whale of a rigorous entertainment.. . . .Facetious, and sprawling over two and a half hours, the film is often unintentionally hilarious but, I hastily add, never tedious. . . .I had a helluva time watching Inglourious Basterds. It’s as frenzied as a dog in heat. Mr. Tarantino lacks nuance, but he’s an erratic, awkward and often brilliant filmmaker. In time, he might even become a mature one.
Here's some comments from a film blog in French. One person wrote:Another post:Quote:
Mais ce n'est pas la longueur des scenes que j'ai trouve' ce film nul, au contraire, cela intensifie le suspense mais les nombreux anachronismes presents dans le film. = But it's not the length of the scenes that made me find this movie worthless, on the contrary, that intensified the suspense but the numerous anachronisms in the film...
That shows both the #1 and #2 meanings of "longueur."Quote:
malgre' quelques longueurs, je ne me suis pas ennuyee'...= Despite some longueurs, I wasn't bored.
Websters:
lon·gueur (lông gûrÆ, long-; Fr. lôN gŒRÆ), n., pl. -gueurs (-gûrzÆ; Fr. -gŒRÆ).
a long and boring passage in a literary work, drama, musical composition, or the like: The longueurs in this book make it almost unreadable.
[1815–25; < F: lit., length]
I came across Dana Steven's review from The Slate that captures my views of this film:
The Slate Review .
Chris, I'm a quarter of the way through the Charlie Rose interview and I'll post after I see it all. (He has it up on his website now). So far so good. I also (as QT did) liked the "ouvre" clips at the beginning.
But to get back to your disagreement with Eli Roth's comments, revenge always gets a bad rap. There's a part of me that wanted to go along with George Bush's "revenge war" for 9/11. But my intellect told me that it was wrong all the way. Wrong in how he went about it. That's probably what angered me so damn much about Bush: he had the world in his hand and he threw it away, like he threw his brain away as soon as he was sworn into the oval office.
If you were a woman, and were raped, are you telling me you wouldn't want revenge? If someone killed your son or your wife or your mother you wouldn't want revenge? Forget about being too much like the perpetrators, they invaded your life. They invaded your "being". It's damn regrettable to dismiss morality in a situation like that, but I'm telling you, if something horrifically evil happens to me, I won't be dwelling on whether or not I'm gonna look or act like the perpetrator. I'll be dwelling on how best to get revenge. Is it by leaving it up to the "authorities", who stand a good chance of bungling the "investigation" in the name of "justice"? Or is it by nailing the bastard? I may be wrong on moral grounds, but at least I'd have justice in my mind. I don't want to take the law into my own hands, but sometimes, in life, some shit just must be avenged. And if you can do it, do it.
If you worry about God and "two wrongs don't make a right" or your conscience, then by all means, let the authorities deal with it.
I'm not saying go off half-cocked, like an unhinged loon, looking for justice. I'm saying think long and hard about it, (the context), and make sure you're ready to face jail time before you do anything in retaliation. Because there are definite consequences. Know what your doing, not forgetting your thinking cap, because emotions can cloud that. You could cause unforseen traumas or accidents- think about that too. Think about all of the possible outcomes. What's your contingency with your revenge? What are you exactly "revenging"? Is it worth it?
Killing Nazis? Burning them down to hell?
Lock and Load, Basterds!!!!!!!!
Jew Bear! Bring that fuckin' Bat!!!!
Excellent interview. Very informative. Lots of grist for the film buff mill...
Quentin reveals a lot about his working methods and it's made me appreciate his films even more. He's very passionate about cinema, no argument at all on that, from anyone. I love his enthusiasm for his own work, for the Good, the Bad, & The Ugly and his knowledge. It's quite considerable. Loved learning about Wyler's Mrs. Miniver & the Goebbels connection.
It's an inspiring interview, actually. He explains why the music in his films is enough, that he doesn't have to make a musical. He talks about how "A Day in the Life of Elvis Presley" is more interesting than a whole bio-pic. He's right: seeing all the events of the whole day leading up to Elvis walking into Sun Records for the first time is way more interesting than a hammy "whole-life" story. I hope he makes that Elvis movie sometime. He'd do it severe justice. I can envision some of his scenes now..LOL
He's the Man. His point about the bravery of the German before he's killed by the Jew Bear is bang-on. A great refute to David Denby's scathing critique...
That is an interview you could watch over and over.
Thanks to Mr. Rose and Mr. Tarantino. Fine fine televison.
The new Charlie Rose Quentin Tarantino interview is here.
Revenge is a primitive and un-Christian. It deserves a "bad rap." But as a theme it is exciting and suspenseful and it allows Tarantino to play endlessly with references to Westerns and Samurai movies and other cinema he feels the greatest kinship with. QT's movies are such a guilty pleasure at times and so full of energy because he touches on animal impulses, on things so politically incorrect we can hardly believe how much they delight us. "Clarence Worley? Sound like a niggah name." God how I love that line! And: "I'm gonna get medieval on your ass." Terrific! The sheer panache of being able to write such stuff! These are primitive impulses, but pushing those buttons feels way better than some liberal softy PC film about the downtrodden like Frozen River.
Thanks for mentioning those points in the interview -- Tarantino's lack of need to do a musical, and his boredom with the biopic form, which indeed is mostly an excuse for turning out stuff that is repetitious and boring. One can see how the single day in the life of Elvis leading up to his walking into Sun Records for the first time would get QT's creative juices flowing much, much more and deservedly so.
Michuk (Borys Musielak) of FILMASTER watched the interview at my suggestion and then went on to watch all the Charlie Rose interviews. A good idea; they're good. I don't think I've seen them all and want to. But this new one is particularly comprehensive and good.
By "ouvre" you mean "oeuvre," but QT mispronounces it himself and maybe you were trying to capture his flavor.
tabuno: will take a look at that Slate review.
He talked about the suspense in Basterds being "stretched like a rubber band" until it snaps in the Charlie Rose interview.
He also said in another interview in a paper I read that Brad Pitt and him agreed to expose each other's audiences to each other: a win-win situation. Which is why I won't gripe too much about his casting, which I felt was wrong. I didn't feel his character was real enough, that a number of better actors could have done that role and made it more juicy, more memorable. I mean, at the premiere of "Nation's Pride", Raine looks like he's trying to mimic Brando in the Godfather- with the stuffed cheeks and weird eyes...
He was a caricature for me, not a "character"
I like the opening part of the Slate review (whcih, by the way, is by Dana Stevens), where Stevens lists recent movies about Nazis and points out how abusrd or dubious they are. But I differ with him when he goes here:Defiance is pallid, and conventional, and INGOOURIOUS BASTERDS definitely is neither, nor is any moment in it "dramatically nert." And even if it were, waht would that have to do with why the "gentile" [sic] Lt. Raine is in command of the Apache Jews. Who doesn't know the reason for that? It's to put Brad Pitt at the top of the movie's cast and win huge box office, and that has worked. As for Pitt's performance, it works also, if you realize that despite its horrific moments, INCLOURIOUS BASTERDS is not meant to be either realistic or serious.Quote:
As a cathartic fantasy about kicking Nazi ass, Inglourious Bastards falls short even of last year's pallid Defiance. The scenes showing the Basterds in action offer plenty of Nazi-bashing, but they're dramatically inert. We learn nothing about, for example, why the unit is under the command of the gentile Lt. Raine or how the soldiers relate to him or to one another.
This is a good line to debate: "Like Spielberg, Tarantino is director enough to elicit cinematic wows even at his most reprehensible." And the set pieces "are near-perfect examples of taut, suspenseful moviemaking." In many ways Stevens gives QT his due. But he doesn't like it, and I guess that's where he and tabuno are in perfect harmony.
Everybody acknowledges Tarantino's faults, but some go on to acknowledge his genius, and others don't.
Yes, Lt. Aldo Raine is a caricature, but some of Tarantino's characters usually are. They are the quintessence of something. He's a film pastiche. So is Christoph Waltz's character; he's just more suave and speaks more languages.
But that said, Brad Pitt was better, in fact priceless, as an actor in a Tarantino-authored film in his cameo as the stoner in TRUE ROMANCE.
Do I reply as Jason or Johann?
How I should reply from now on?
How about this: Jason sticks if accreditation comes through.
If it doesn't, then it's Johann forever. Deal?
So it's up to you, TIFF communications office....
Absolutely, Pitt was better in True Romance, a movie I love.
Everybody in Basterds is a caricature in a way, but I want them to be REAL caricatures..real in the sense of absolute identity.
Raine has kind of an unknown or shaded identity. He's just "there". He doesn't give me the sense that he's been in war forever, that he's an officer who's earned his stripes to be Commander of the Basterds squad. Yes, he's got a rope burn around his neck. So what? I didn't think about it at all until Tarantino mentioned it in the Rose interview. As a matter of fact, I would've liked to have had a little more background info on all the Basterds. Just a little more info. Not the whole enchilada, just some more clues into their "characters". Make no mistake, I worship this movie.
Loved it, through and through. And always will.
(It's a big movie event in my life, what with seeing QT and Eli Roth in person at the Premiere, and I'm so glad I love it. It would've sucked the big weenie if I had that priviledge and then the movie was a turkey to me). I'm just being nitpicky, really.
Tarantino made the movie the way he did, and to me it's excellent.
Excellent premise, excellent performances, excellent cinema.
I don't wanna get too nitpicky, as he said he doesn't delve too much into subtexts at all in his movies.
He likes to keep it on the surface.
It is important to see or meet filmmakers and stars, to cement an admiration. I've seen a lot of those at the Nyff, thanks to PMW's original push to cover it in 2005. I don't know why, but I always think of being in the narrow entrance hallway to the Walter Reade facing Penelope Cruz. And seeing Kate Winslet, Nicole Kidman, Catherine Deneuve, and Catherine Breillat in person, as well as the loquacious (in two languages) Pedro Almodovar, and Mike Leigh, and many more. There have been some cute guys... I also love to sit through lengthy Q&As in French and Italian with an interpreter. The French one at FSLC is really good..
You can still review TIFF films whether you get this accreditation or not, and when you post in the Festival Coverage section, use Jason. Elsewhere I suggest when you post a full-fledged review, use Jason. For rants and debates, stick to the old familiar Johann.
That way I can hide, right?
No way.
My cover's blown now...HA HA!
I live at ------- ----- st.
My phone number is--- --- ----
LOL
I hide from NO ONE. LOL
Oh, the price of infamy...ha ha ha
We know where you are. We can go into your computer and read your hard disk.
I'm quite jealous now. Nicole Kidman? Breillat? Deneuve?Winslet?
Wow. That's some star power, right there.
And didn't you say Agnes Varda was at the Rendez-Vous?
Glad some "cuties" tickled your fancy...lol
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
We know where you are. We can go into your computer and read your hard disk.
Do you hear that? I hear chopper blades overhead!
What was that?!
I think I just saw a S.W.A.T. man rappel past the window...
I notice nobody's mentioned the effective use of the David Bowie song.
Puttin' out a fire with GASOLINE...
It indicates that Agnes Varda was there, but I can't remember if she came to the press screenings. Sometimes they dont' for the Rendez-Vous. For the NYFF they more often seem to. Here's a FSLC pdf file I dredged up listing the French people who were expected for Rendez-Vous 2009.
I Tarantino appearance probably was more energetic than most of these, but when you have Christopher Doyle Bridgette Lim, and Wong Kar-wai sitting in a row, or people like that, it holds my attention as much as any cuties.
Well I must say, it was an electrifying experience being at the Canadian Premiere. (never been to one of those type of galas before). To have him introduce the film with Eli was pretty damn special. I still can't believe I was there. I'm not so much star struck as just feeling priviledged- it's not lost on me, trust me.
I don't take it for granted.
Seeing someone you admire in person is pretty damn cool, like when I met Henry Rollins, and the members of Riders on the Storm in 2005, when they had Ian Astbury with them.
I haven't had too many brushes with REAL celebrities.
That will probably change in the next two weeks tho...
Indeed I did. And after doing that I watched Pulp Fiction two times in a row which made me love and appreciate this fantastic movie, one of the best in the history of cinema, even more.Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Michuk (Borys Musielak) of FILMASTER watched the interview at my suggestion and then went on to watch all the Charlie Rose interviews. A good idea; they're good. I don't think I've seen them all and want to. But this new one is particularly comprehensive and good.
But back to The Basterds... Many believed that even a quasi-serious war movie is too much for him. After being slightly disappointed by his latest features (Death Proof was a fine "carsploitation" film but I'm not a big fan of the genre, Kill Bill was good but too long and with too many fighting scenes which made it boring for me at times) I was very sceptical about the Basteds. I did not expect a masterpiece. But it got close to one! Christopher Waltz owns this film and even though the script could be better at times and some acting is out of place (think Roth and some of the other Basterds), great cinematography and acting of Waltz, Laurent and most of the crew make up for it. Funny and entertaining. Best Tarantino in years!
I wrote a review of the film on Filmaster so you can take a look here: Who's the bastard?
By the way... yesterday I watched Almodovar's "Broken Embraces" and for the whole screening I had this crazy idea that the movie is very similar to Tarantinto's "Basterds". Of course the cinematography is very different, there are more gay people and fewer Nazi scalps and the stories have completely nothing to do with each other... but what they have in common is that both movies show the great love and affection for cinema-making in their own Almodovarish and Tarantinoesque ways.
This is what my first impression after watching Broken Embraces was:
I love both directors even though they are so different. But I love them mainly for this distinctive taste they brought to the world cinema. When you watch any of their movies, after nearly 5 minutes you can tell it's Almodovar or Tarantino. And not that many directors managed to achieve this. I can think of the Coen brothers, Altman, Jarmusch, Kieślowski, maybe a few more. And they are my favorite directors.Quote:
What is the worst thing that can happen to a filmmaker? Someone cutting the movie for you! There is no doubt that Pedro Almodóvar was more lucky than the director in his movie, Harry Caine, and was allowed to make the final cut all by himself. In "Broken Embraces" he shows his great affection for cinema-making while still managing to tell us a fresh, funny and dramatic story about love, jealousy and sick desire. Very unique, one of his best.
One could argue that making a movie about movie-making is inappropriate ego-centrism. It's like a writer writing about writing a book (it can go recursive as well). It's very personal and very true, but why would anyone care? Those are not real-life issues, right?
But if you look at the cinema not as you look at the novels (more or less you expect them to be serious and have something to say), but rather admire it for its pure, naive beauty and just let yourself be simply entertained, you may start to fully appreciate the geniuses of such art.
Did I go offtopic? Sorry for that... I just felt like sharing some of those feeling about cinema that I recently discovered in myself.
Thanks for the appreciations. Broken Embraces opens later in the US. I hope to see it in the NYFF, where it is a selection. Almodovar will probably be there. He and Richard Pena, the festival director are friendly.
Judging on your previous reviews (of which I read something like 20 just today :P) you are going to love it. It has all that a decent movie needs, highly recommended!Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Thanks for the appreciations. Broken Embraces opens later in the US. I hope to see it in the NYFF, where it is a selection. Almodovar will probably be there. He and Richard Pena, the festival director are friendly.