2003 Rank 'em as you see them

[Chris Knipp]

There’s a lot of “bullshit” in your posting and not much evidence of what it is you’re talking about. I can only say that Tarantino is not about the violence. His violence is by reference to other movies. He is making movies about movies that are, even in their most violent moments, primarily about the dialogue. And if you’re going to throw out movies because they contain violence, you’re going to throw out ¾ of all the movies in the world. Nonetheless you're quite right in your other thread about violence in film that there is a rising tide of it (Gibson's Passion of the Christ and its success are examples of that trend); and you're certainly right that people are violent. America is a violent nation. America is making violence all over the world, making it and encouraging it in other nations, to the cost of billions every week paid by us taxpayers. That is the real obscenity, not the highly cinematic and witty movies of Quentin Tarantino (note spelling). If you think that Tarantino is about the violence, then you don't understand what other people see in his movies, which you said was what you were "dying to know." I think what they like is the dialogue. But there's cinematic genius in his movies that goes beyond one element.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Tarantino is either loved or hated. There's not much of a middle ground if you have a pulse.

Somebody please call 911 for me!

[Chris Knipp]

I was just going by recent impressions, especially from FilmWurld postings. The middle ground is the best place to be because it's there that we can have good discussions. I'm sure you've got a pulse! I definitely am a big Tarantino fan, but that doesn't mean he can do no wrong in my book.

[cinemabon]

There is little doubt that Tarentino is trendy among the young. It's very hip, cool, rad, etc. to say around the water cooler; "Hey, did you see Kill Bill? Wasn't it great?"... there are many who agree. However popular something may be does not give it underlying credence to being ethical, right, or proper. A hell of a lot of people thought Jim Crow was right, too.

What dialogue is in reference to other films you keep bringing up, Chris? I don't get this vibe that Tarentino is this great master filmmaker (akin to a Kubrick, let's say) that makes homages to other filmmakers. Are you saying that Kill Bill is in reference to Kurosowa? Or perhaps another filmmaker? Where is the reference in "Pulp Fiction"? Is it in the part when the couple blaze guns in the restaurant? Or perhaps when the two gangsters blast away at men in a room? Further, you imply that if I cannot see this, then I must be lacking some sort of film insight. Then enlighten me. Please. Because I'm dying to know what I've been missing when I get grossed out by someone's head being blow apart by a close range gun blast... I'm not making the pyschic connection somehow... So please point it out to me. You seem to have the answers. Tell me so I can understand what all the bravado is about. The dialogue is so profound when the two men who do the blasting are discussing cheeseburgers in France. Now that's profound! (Sarcasm intended)

I look for simplicity and honesty to give me enlightenment. To me, those qualities far outshine the most complex canvas of ideas, which often confuse rather than enlighten. It took a simple man, like John Muir, to point out to the most learned men of his day, that unless they set aside certain areas of land, they would be lost forever. Because of a simpleton like Muir (who was self educated, despite going to University of Wisconsin), we have the National Park System. The sayings of Laotse are not complex but simple, yet they enlighten more than Proust. A patent clerk gave us, E=MC2 ... so simple, yet we all know it. The Gettysburg Address is three paragraphs, yet it is etched in stone and engraved in minds forever. I will never forget "Rosebud", but for the life of me cannot see what there is to remember in Quentin Tarentino or his works.

As for violence in film, I would ask you to read my posting on "The Godfather", one of the greatest films of all time. Why should I think that film is great and "Pulp Fiction" shit? Enlighten me...

[Johann]

QT is not a "master" (yet). He's well on his way, though.

I understand your position, cinemabon: gratuitous violence doesn't make for great cinema. Your point is well taken. QT is over-the-top. BUT! He's over the top in such a way that it isn't so much gratuitous as it is upholding certain traditions: he pays tribute to the "vibe" of films like The Wild Bunch, Band of Outsiders, and Superfly.

Tarantino is a film geek. How can you not love a fellow film geek? If he was dishonoring the medium somehow I could see his dismissal as a "great filmmaker", but man, he's got a feel to his films that just soothes the soul. He loves movies of all types and he just tries to make the best films he can make while satisfying his own taste. Can't fault him for that.

His violence is cinema violence. You never actually see Marvin's head get blown off. You THINK you see it, (it's edited like a lightning bolt), but Quentin never actually goes all the way. You see a LOT of blood and "brain tissue"(which creates the revulsion/horror in the viewer), but he edited the scene so well that the point is driven home without EVERYTHING. Case in point again: the anal rape of Marcellus Wallace. You never see anything explicit- extremely disturbing, yes- explicit, no. Same thing in Reservoir Dogs during the "are you gonna bark?" scene- Madsen cuts off the cops' ear but YOU DON'T SEE IT ACTUALLY BEING CUT OFF.

QT knows the power of a well-edited scene. It's like George Lucas said: "It's not hard to get a reaction from an audience- just show some guy wringing a kittens' neck".
You seem to have a visceral contempt for Tarantino, cinemabon.
I sense you strongly object to his methods of delivering entertainment- not the entertainment he delivers. You mention The Godfather- a fairly violent movie. Sonny is riddled with bullets (like Travolta was in Pulp) and it's pretty shocking. How about the horse head scene? Grim stuff. Coppola showed you an ACTUAL horse's head! QT never showed you ACTUAL brain tissue or even ACTUAL blood. It's sfx. Coppola shows a cow being slaughtered in Apocalypse. Who's more gratuitous?

I won't try to sway you to join the QT camp, but I will say he's more aware of what he puts on screen than we are. It's because he's trying to honor the medium and the men who inspired him.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm with you all the way on this, Johann. I think though that actually people, even FilmWurld people, sometimes resent rather than like Tarantino because he's a film geek, as well as because he's popular and super-famous. Some of us may feel he's just totally over-the-top as a film geek; that he loses touch completely with "reality" (a word that Nabokov said must always be in quotation marks, and certainly should be when we're talking about movies). A lot of filmbuffdom is about admiring offbeat, not-famous movies that are full of wholesome thoughts and fine intentions. That approach won't get you very far inside Tarantinodom.

For me Tarantino was always about the dialogue, but also about the fresh way he uses movie traditions, and stuff that's uniquely cinematic. There are things that work really well on the screen --for instance, shooting guns; smoking cigarettes; going very fast in cars -- which aren't necessarily a good idea in real life. But they are just very cool in the movies. Tarantino works with these things. He works completely out of the movies, all his references are to other movies, sometimes it seems every shot starts with a reference to another movie, and yet he doesn't need somebody else's ideas or stories to make his movies, they're completely his own. That's the paradox.

His sense of timing is exquisite. His pacing and editing. Along with that he has great clarity. Nothing is fuzzy, everything is spelled out, but with wit. There's tremendous enthusiasm for the process, and at the same time the detachment necessary to crack a joke -- a heroic quality, which is why he has been moving in the direction of heroic characters in Kill Bill 1 & 2. What makes Kill Bill 1 & 2 beautiful to watch is that clarity. And the clarity also is what makes QT's dialogue so much fun: its being so clearly in the moment. It goes where it takes them. Travolta and Jackson are going upstairs to kill some guys, but they're talking about foot massage, because that's where the dialogue takes them. Yet it's highly relevant to the story: it's about their relation to Marcellus Wallace. Few filmmakers in cinematic history have written better dialogue than Tarantino writes. But I'm not sure every film buff has a sensitivity to dialogue -- though a lot of average moviegoers do because it's pure entertainment. The film buff likes to see von Trier's women being tormented, and says that's uplifting, but when Travolta has somebody's head blown off, even though we don't see it and it's not really about hurting anybody, the film buff is filled with righteous indignation, because it's not serious.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Johann
I'm adding Kiarostami's "10" to the list.

This film should have won the Palm D'or. Abbas takes a bold idea and comes up with a beautiful montage of female yin and yang.

It's a convincing exposee of one lonely Iranian woman. She's a taxi driver, and she's both repulsive and attractive. She has conversations with other women and her son that speak volumes about her own insecurities & dreams. Staggering film.
My favorite scene is the one with the prostitute. I know why Kiarostami doesn't show her face, but God did I want to see it!!
Never in my life have I wanted to put a face to a voice..


Touching, heartbreaking, I saw it twice.

I'm also adding Abbas Kiarostami's 10 to the list of best films of 2003. (The film had an official North American premiere on March 5, 2003 although it was shown at the 2002 NYFF). 10 was granted a (very) limited release. I had to import the dvd from the UK to have access to it.
I admire how effectively Kiarostami managed to circumvent Iran's strict censorship, which make it virtually impossible to deal with male-female relationships. He has found a formal structure consisting of ten scenes shot from a DV camera planted on a car's dashboard. An obnoxious boy of about 12 serves as a stand-in for the men in the lives of a middle-class female driver and the women who ride in her car.

[cinemabon]

Perhaps I am wearing the blinders that come with age that tend to prejudice vision. I promise I will contain myself on QT until Kill Bill Vol 2 comes out on DVD. I will sit down and watch both films together and make a more valid opinion then.

[Chris Knipp]

My friend Jessica just saw Kill Bill 2 for the third time. She was the one who first suggested to me that it improves with re-viewings. I've seen 1 and 2 both twice, and agree. With any movie, you have to give yourself to it, or you'll never enjoy. How many arthouse items would be a total bore if we didn't go in with a positive frame of mind. Would I have been as open to Haneke'sTime of the Wolfif I hadn't gone in already aware of the director's previous acconmplishments? Ditto Sokorov's Father and Son? I had to adopt a relaxed, passive attentiveness to enjoy Gus Van Sant's Gerry. With Tarantino it's more like entering a Fun House.

P.s. I'm not young. But I don't find that blinders come with age.

[cinemabon]

"The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom." H. L. Mencken

[Chris Knipp]

the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom

I didn't say that.

Perhaps I am wearing the blinders that come with age that tend to prejudice vision

You said that.

What dialogue is in reference to other films you keep bringing up, Chris? I don't get this vibe that Tarentino is this great master filmmaker (akin to a Kubrick, let's say) that makes homages to other filmmakers. Are you saying that Kill Bill is in reference to Kurosowa? Or perhaps another filmmaker? Where is the reference in "Pulp Fiction"? Is it in the part when the couple blaze guns in the restaurant? Or perhaps when the two gangsters blast away at men in a room? Further, you imply that if I cannot see this, then I must be lacking some sort of film insight. Then enlighten me. Please. Because I'm dying to know what I've been missing when I get grossed out by someone's head being blow apart by a close range gun blast...

If Kubrick or Kurosawa and their ilk are the only valid homages, Tarantino's a loser in the cult game. His influences have been often cited and are mostly pop stuff, but also American classics like John Ford. The parts when "gangsters blast away" in a room or face off with pistols are probably most indebted to John Woo, but Woo was referencing Hollywood.

There is little doubt that Tarentino is trendy among the young. It's very hip, cool, rad, etc. to say around the water cooler; "Hey, did you see Kill Bill? Wasn't it great?"... there are many who agree. However popular something may be does not give it underlying credence to being ethical, right, or proper. A hell of a lot of people thought Jim Crow was right, too.

This is what I was replying to: I'm not young, and you won't find me around your water cooler, but I love Tarantino. He doesn't appeal to a limited demographic; that's your presumption, but untrue. The reference to Jim Crow is dirty pool. "Ethical, right, or proper" are aesthetic values only to prudes who aren't open to experimentation, risk -- or fun. Must a movie be "touching" or "heartbreaking" to be deemed good? Must the moral police come along to declare Tarantino unethical?

Ultimately this comes down not to demographics or to morals but to taste.

[tabuno]

I finally caught both Spider and Mystic River on DVD this past week. I was amazed at Ralph Fiennes performance. His performance in Spider easily rates as one of the best, especially in comparison to Sean Penn in Mystic River or even Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind.

I am usually amused by the Best Actor category because most of the time it seems that the eventual winner has some emotional, over the top role that for me is pretty easily accomplished by most actors - particularly Sean Penn's role. His performance didn't require all that much subtlety. Compared to Ralph Fiennes, even Bill Murray in Lost in Translation, acting - true performances require nuanced acting ability - expression, small details...

Ralph Fiennes had a great script, a great role, a superb grasp of his material and character...it wasn't over the top like Mr. Crowe in A Beautiful Mind. Mystic River captured its accolades by going against type in terms of the general public's expectations of a movie - it seemed fresh and unusual. Mr. Fiennes, however, went beyond the normal mental illness stereotype to create a strikingly real and important experiential performance that really captures a disorder that impacts thousands of people in this country.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by tabuno
Ralph Fiennes had a great script, a great role, a superb grasp of his material and character...it wasn't over the top like Mr. Crowe in A Beautiful Mind. Mystic River captured its accolades by going against type in terms of the general public's expectations of a movie - it seemed fresh and unusual. Mr. Fiennes, however, went beyond the normal mental illness stereotype to create a strikingly real and important experiential performance that really captures a disorder that impacts thousands of people in this country.

You are absolutely correct, and Cronenberg mentioned this himself in an interview that he has heard from many shocked by how realistic his portrayed of the illness truly was. Fiennes was great along with the film, no surprise that J. Hoberman selected Spider as the best film from 2003.

[wpqx]

Well I'm currently watching The Fog of War right now, so I'll get back to what I think of it. As for the rest

Mystic River - over the top.

Lord of the Rings - Great, but not the best in the series

Big Fish - A lost better than most people gave it credit for.

21 Grams - Brilliant

Kill Bill Vol. 1 - Best American film of the year

City of God - Best film of the year

The Last Samurai - Entertaining, but far from a masterpiece

Something's Gotta Give - Unrealistic, and focused a little too far on a middle aged women audience

Osama - Manipulative, but effective

House of Sand and Fog - Manipulative, but not that effective

Elephant - Brilliant in that Aguirre the Wrath of God way

Bad Santa - Cheesy, but damn funny

Thirteen - Good, but not exactly what I expected

Finding Nemo - Fantastic, but not Toy Story good

Monster - Great acting, decent film

Seabiscuit - Entertaining, but not worth a best picture nomination

Lost in Translation - I think I missed something, but worth watching to see Bill Murray sing Elvis Costello

Matrix Reloaded - Bah

The Company - Out of touch

In America - Just alright

Whale Rider - Thumbs up for Miss Hughes, best child performance of the year

Pirates of the Carribean - Nothing to get excited about, except for Kierra Knightley (insert drooling sound here)

That's enough for now

[tabuno]

Except for a few disagreements, wpqx really directs some good commentary of last year's films. On most of the major movies I would agree with wpqx - the disagreements aren't enough to go into here.