No surprises at all.
Winners after the jump… for the sake of avoiding spoilers for late West Coast viewers…
Ensemble – Inglourious Basterds
Actor – Jeff Bridges
Actress – Sandra Bullock
Supporting Actor – Christof Waltz
Supporting Actress – Mo’Nique
Susu on: The Letters From Iwo Jima review
Krillian on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Hallick on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Joe Parts on: Welcome To The Future
qbtqpidc on: Oscar Morning Coming Down
IOv3 on: 20 Weeks Extra: Could There Be One More Turn?
20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
20 Weeks Extra: Could There Be One More Turn?
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
no surprises Dave? Well none in the winners, but some funny surprise bits:
“A friend of mine told me she was a bobcat in the sack”, George CLooney on Betty White.
Betty White on Sandra Bullock
of someone has the plain Jane zinger, post it, it was funny.
This puts the deathnail in Hurt Locker’s chances to surprise Avatar as Best Pic at the Oscars. And no way will Inglourious Basterds win either so looks like Avatar is a lock. Also locks are Mo-Nique, Jeff Bridges and Christopher Walz. The only suspenseful acting category is whether Meryl or Sandra win.
It’ll be Sandra.
Bored to tears
Lousy awards season
Totally mediocre 2009 year for the movies…lots of box office, but nothing that would make my top 50 movies of all time
Almost as sad as Extraordinary Measures
Don’t eat the yellow snow at Sundance
How is Basterds winning not a big surprise? It must be nice to always know everything about everything.
This wasn’t complicated, J-Mc.
Mo’Nique wins for Precious… wasn’t going farther than that…
Hurt Locker is a 3 actor show… not what they usually go for as an ensemble.
An Education is a movie of foreigners… or perceived foreigners… led by a newcomer. Only would win if it was the Best Picture frontrunner.
Nine is dead.
Inglourious is very well liked… has a big, broad ensemble cast… is still seen as one of the few films that can push Avatar for Best Picture… it still would probably have beaten Avatar if Avatar was nominated.
I do think Inglourious would have been a shock looking from 6 weeks ago. But as things have gone, Nine, An Education, and Precious have faded. And like I wrote, a 3-man cast is not likely to win this kind of award. Remember, it’s NOT a Best Picture award.
I don’t know everything about everything… but I do know what I do know.
Why did they have Eli Roth accept the award???
Regardless, he was actually pretty charming.
And who said this was a mediocre year? There were about half a dozen exceptional films, in my book.
Why does that crazy lady think IG winning is a surprise?
Eli Roth’s speech was the best thing he’s ever done. Not saying much, but still.
Love Betty White.
Wonder if Beatty had slept with any of the Best Actress nominees? Odds say yes.
That Christoph Waltz must be one anal dude. I’ll bet he puts in hours of work on those acceptance speeches. But their lack of spontaneity doesn’t seem to go over all that well, or is it just me? He deserves every award for that performance though. Hope he can find another role that’s even half as great.
If I hadn’t known Cuba Gooding, Jr., was a nominee, I’d have thought he was hired for the evening to escort winners up the stairs.
Basterds winning was pretty much expected, wasn’t it? 2009 seems like a year where the Best Picture favourite wasn’t nominated (that’d be Avatar) so they actually had to award the prize on merit and give it to the best performance by an ENSEMBLE. Where were they last year when they were giving the prize to a bunch of non-actors who did nothing extraordinary whatsoever apart from be in a movie that a lot of people just happen to like. Ugh. At least Basterds is a worthy winner here and not just a best picture by proxy.
The members of SAG are even more pathetic than I imagined if they’re going to single out someone like Bullock as the best of the year.
I don’t care how nice she is.
Three-man? Also: Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, Evangeline Lilly, David Morse. And that’s just the names people know.
I consider myself a fan of QT but am I the only person who didn’t see anything remarkable about Inglorious? I mean it was like a WW2 movie directed by Kevin Smith. Tons of people sitting at tables talking a paper thin story and one dimensional performances. I really don’t get it.
If you see anything in common between the directing styles of Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino, then I question your claim to be a fan of the latter.
tfresca, i couldnt disagree with you more. and this is from a guy who felt tarantino was shooting blanks after kill bill and death proof.
i hated death proof. loathed it.
But Inglorious Basterds shows he’s at his best when he’s dealing with characters and not trying to stage massive setpieces.
If you watch the opening scene and think that the performances are one dimensional, you’re nuts. It’s a simply staged scene with so many layers. It’s a chess game, a scene that tells us everything about the character, and it’s done in multiple languages no less.
Sure, Brad Pitt was playing a one note character. But the german and french characters were so well drawn.
I think Tarantino is capable of creating amazing characters when he’s not painting the scenes with noise.
Shoshanna, in my opinion, was the best character i saw on film this year. Tragic, beautiful, and memorable.
I know this will sound a tad ghoulish, but: I note that one of the most-viewed stories on Variety.com this morning is actor Dennis Cole’s obit. Cole died last November — but maybe most folks didn’t know he had died until they saw he was part of last night’s DGA tribute to the departed?
Joe: Yeah, I was surprised when Dennis Cole showed up in the memorial montage. Also some lesser-known character actors like Stephen Gilborn, John Quade, Frank Aletter, and Mouseketeer Cheryl Holdridge.
Farnk Aletter was one of the stars of It’s About Time — an obscure ’60s sitcom that I fully expect to be turned into a big-budget movie in my lifetime. Everybody sing now: “It’s about time, it’s about space, about two men in the strangest place…”
Anghus, I completely agree with you about Inglorious Basterds – it is a much smarter film and has more depth than most people are giving it credit for. Brad Pitt’s performance is probably the weakest of on-the-nose of the bunch and even he’s pretty solid. Everybody clearly brought their A-game to this film – has Diane Krueger ever been better? Did any one think Eli Roth would even be watchable?
And Waltz is getting all the hype and he deserves it, too. But look out for Fassbinder and Laurent, as well.
Think back to six months ago and just how limited expectations were for this film. The Kill Bills left every one underwhelmed, the cast was lower-wattage than any other recent Taratino film and the release date looked questionable – NOBODY was expecting this thing to get a Best Picture nomination, ten nods or not. This SAG award isn’t huge news, but it pretty much guarantees a Best Pic nod, at least.
Geoff, Eli Roth was BARELY watchable, and his first scene nearly killed the film with how cringeworthy he overplayed. He redeemed himself with the humorous Italian bit at the theatre, but he was without a doubt the weakest link of the cast and should have been played by somebody else.
The opening scene of IB is magnificent on so many levels, as is the underground bar scene. These are extraordinary performances, made more compelling by their foreign languages. And when Tarantino writes the sad, desperate scenes between Erich Stoller trying to breach Shoshanna, he sings in a new key.
Eli Roth = Tarantino’s Rebecca Pidgeon.
“The Kill Bills left every one underwhelmed, the cast was lower-wattage than any other recent Taratino film and the release date looked questionable”
Really? Vol 1, at least, is a masterpiece and Brad Pitt singlehandedly trumps everyone in Death Proof (despite myself actually liking Death Proof more).
Aldo The Apache does not trump Stuntman Mike. Nope.
Clearly, I am not a fan of QT. I haven’t been bashful about that, but some of the words you guys are using…I’m stunned. Depth? Really?
I defy anyone to tell me three things about any character in the movie. Waltz is the most clearly defined character and QT throws him under the bus in the third act.
SPOILERS (not that there’s anyone here that hasn’t seen the movie): Minutes after killing Diane Krueger’s character for being a traitor, he himself turns traitor with absolutely no explanation whatsoever. END SPOILERS
We know two things about the next best character, Shoshanna. She wants revenge for the death of her family and has an (unseen) aunt who is French that left her a movie theatre.
I know Brad Pitt’s character is from the South and he likes killing Nazis.
Three of the Basterds disappear after being introduced never to be seen again.
There’s no plot. There’s no story (just a string of one act plays loosely related). And it’s interminably long.
Best movie of last year.
hendhogan: “We know two things about the next best character, Shoshanna.”
WRONG. We know THREE things: She wants revenge, has an aunt that left her a movie theatre… and is HOT AS HELL. BOW TO HER. YOU NEED TO BOW.
LAURENT POWER.
One of the THREE best movies of last year, so Jeff’s 33% correct. Which is better than usual.
I think Frederick Stoller’s conflicted, reluctant war hero in love with a Jewish French girl who will never reciprocate feelings is some kinda depth.
How? Again, the character reverts to stereotype when he doesn’t get what he wants and he turns petulant and thuggish. It’s the love of a thirteen year old.
And Lex, not going to bow down this time. Not hot. Pretty, yes. But hot? C’mon. On a scale of one to Megan Fox, she’s a five at best.
Ah, but Megan Fox is not hot unless you think Japanese sex dolls who were insecure enough to also get boob implants are hot.
Hendhogan, some of the questions you asked earlier about Basterds would be valid in a different movie, but for this one they tend to be irrelevant.
The Megan Fox line is for Lex.
But curious how lack of character development, lack of story, lack of plot is irrelevant, Jeff. And, hey, while I’m at it, lack of theme, lack of any social value whatsoever. Unless you count “Nazis are bad” as a theme, in which case, I apologize.
Did you honestly care what happened to any of the characters? And, if so, why?
“when he doesn’t get what he wants and he turns petulant and thuggish. It’s the love of a thirteen year old.”
Because that never happens in real life? Or to a Nazi war hero? And he only gets angry, not crazy violent.
I really liked Inglorious Basterds, but hendhogan does make some valid points, which you excuse for liking the movie but they’re there. I think Tarantino continuously pussies out…and he’s the guy who likes to think of himself as NOT being a pussy, but he is. Zoller getting angry at Shoshana is letting the audience off the hook…oh, she shot him but he’s really an asshole underneath so it’s okay. Just like the Nazi that gets clubbed to death. I loved how Tarantino was playing the guy as brave and everything, but of course before the guy dies, he has to use some Jewish slurs…so we know that they’re beating to death a guy who’s not THAt good, really.
And it does bother me about Landa killing the spy and then three minutes later turning over the whole shebang. I’m sure Tarantino in his own mind has some sort of convoluted reasoning or why that makes sense, but I’m not seeing it.
Christian:
SPOILERS.
He kills her! How is that not crazy violent?
In any case, there’s no depth to his “love.” There are no stakes for him because he doesn’t know she Jewish. He thinks she’s French. And because QT doesn’t give us any idea of why he’s interested in her, we are left with the simple answer, which is that he just does. Someone who wants something because he wants it is a child. It makes me understand why he does what he does in the end, but it doesn’t make it deep.
The Big Perm:
Thanks for sticking up for me a little bit.
Look, you can really like the movie. Clearly, I did not. I presented part of my case against it (yes, I have more). But this isn’t just about attacking the film. I seriously want to know what about it that you guys think ranks it as an Oscar contender. Cause I don’t see it.
i also liked ‘ing-terds’ a great deal, it’s well designed and executed, but certain perfs did not work for me and i don’t see all the so-called depth people are carping on about.
there appears to be a perception that: 1) a plethora of dialog equates to “depth/depth of character”, which simply isn’t the case (otherwise ‘hurlyburly’ would possibly be the most profound character study in the history of modern cinema); and 2) subtitled dialog in languages other than english equates to “depth”, which is also not the case, tho it adds a bit of flavour
I meant that he didn’t get crazy violent until she SHOT him in the back. And you’re not supposed to feel like he deserved it when she did it, as she actually feels sorry for him for the first and last time. It’s poignant, the distance between war, and and Stoller’s inability to watch himself kill… You think this is all shallow? It’s human. The movie is a pop paen fer sure but there are real emotional currents there. As in JACKIE BROWN. Either it works for you or it doesn’t, but I see it.
I disagree. He gets crazy violent and that’s what makes her shoot him. He pins her up against the door. And quite frankly, I’m not too sure he wasn’t of the mind to take her right then and there.
Now, if Stoller stayed the somewhat sweet guy who’s presence jeopardizes her plan and so she must kill him, I would see what you saw.
In order for me to get emotionally connected, I have to care about what happens to the characters (and consequently care about the characters). But again, going back to my original point of finding more than two things we know about any character, there was no there there.
“Jackie Brown” I don’t have so much of a problem with. Characters are straight out of the Elmore Leonard book. There’s a plot with a comphrensible story. And it’s the most grounded of QT’s films.
Yeah, Stoller kicks open the door when she rebuffs him, then threatens her and mentions that he has killed 300 people or whatever, and he’s not someone who should be told no. I get the sense that had she not pretended to soften up, things would have gone further. It’s clear the guy had been nice enough, and he was going to get what he wanted at that point.
Which is where Tarantino pussied out. It would have been really something to have kept Stoller sympathetic to the end, and essentially have two characters we like kill each other. But nope.
I’d also agree with hendhogan, that again while I liked the movie, I didn’t much care when anyone died…unlike when characters were killed in Jackie Brown and sometimes were very shocking. Essentially no one is killed in Jackie Brown who isn’t really asking for it, but their deaths affected me in a way that watching the heroes of Basterds did not.
But I think Basters should be up for an Academy Award anyway, because I’d rather see a movie like that then fucking Michael Clayton, which I tried watching a few weeks back and got pretty bored. It’s a classy movie and is well shot and played well and is nicely dramatic and Clooney sure looks nice in a suit and it sure is tasteful, and who cares.
“He pins her up against the door. And quite frankly, I’m not too sure he wasn’t of the mind to take her right then and there.”
He does not pin her at all. He pushes open the door, hurting her hand. Then he steps forward and points. He’s pissed but didn’t attempt any rape. Stoller doesn’t even understand why she wants him to close the door. Whether he would have is up for debate. I just think his pride was hurt — Nation’s Pride.
Fair enough, Christian. It’s been over a month since I saw it. My recollection of the specifics are not great. However, what The Big Perm wrote does ring true for me. And I do remember him saying that he wasn’t someone to say no to.
I don’t mean to be a dick when I say this, but is the defense of the movie rising and falling on this one scene?
No, but you asked for what I thought was depth, and I pointed out Frederick Stoller’s conflicted soldier. I guess we can run round what the defnition of depth is here tho, compared to what?
I think you are imprinting something you want to feel about the scene rather than seeing what’s actually there. I don’t fault you for this because the script is somewhat vacuous and nature likes to fill a vaccuum.
There’s no depth of feeling because we know virtually nothing about either character. There’s no depth of emotion because you have to care whether they get together or not for there to be that. And since there’s no set up for why he likes her (outside of LEX and that she’s hot, which is motive for why LEX likes her, but hardly the building block for an argument about depth).
The relationship doesn’t go anywhere from when it’s introduced. He likes her, she despises him for being a Nazi. So, there’s no growth. Even by your own admission, christian, she doesn’t change her view of him to the last moment before they both die. Why would she change then? What has happened to lead her to do that? In any case, it comes off as deus ex machina because there’s no foundation.
I have a hard time considering a movie for best of the year that has two dimensional characters, no story, a weak plot you could drive trucks through, no discernable theme (unless you count Nazis are bad, which I’ll grant, but that’s hardly innovative), performances which are waaay over the top (with a few exceptions).
leahnz and The Big Perm get my points but like it anyway. LEX thinks it should win because Shoshanna is hot. Jeff gets says it’s the best picture of the year without an ounce of reasoning why. And you, christian, are willing to debate the depth of this one scene that maybe lasted 5 minutes in a close to three hour film.
In a year that gave us “The Hurt Locker,” “Moon” and “Brothers,” I need more.
To be fair, IO would say that I hate the movie because I don’t absolutely unwaveringly love every single thing about it.
Hendhogan, by the rather stringent three-act Screenwriting 101 conventions you’re holding Basterds to, what would one make of “Pulp Fiction”?
If you were underwhelmed by PF too, then at least you’re consistent, but what, really, does Pulp Fiction have in terms of earth-shattering plot points? Like that film, in Basterds QT is kind of saying that the most boring and tiresome part of a lot of movies — at least from a screenwriting perspective — is that connect-the-dots plotting, how things get from A to B to C. From a storytelling perspective, Basterds is more like Pulp than any of his other movies, focusing on the small moments and conversations and intense human moments instead of the whos and wheres of how every instance falls into place. (I still don’t think it’s ever remotely explained how BJ Novak is captured.)
There are filmmakers who can make that nuts-and-bolts connective stuff riveting (Mann, Greengrass, etc), but for the most part a lot of that shit seems like some toolish screenwriter’s excuse to show off his Wikipedia abilities or amateur-hour Physics or History degree skills.
But what is the great plot of Pulp Fiction? How do you narrow that down to a TV GUIDE synopsis? “Two hitmen retrieve a briefcase then one goes on a date while a boxer throws a fight.” Thematically, you can argue both movies feature Tarantino’s pet themes of revenge or redemption, etc etc… but do they really? I don’t even know that those are his “thematics” as much as they’re just the thematics of movies he happens to think are cool that he’s paying homage to; He’s hardly a fire-and-brimstone moralist like a Ferrara or a Schrader or Spike; His characters have arcs in both movies, but on some level just function to serve the moment-to-moment thrills and prolonged setpieces. If it doesn’t work for you in Basterds, I don’t see how it can pass muster in any of his non-Jackie Brown movies, because the style and sensation IS the point, not who got where how and why.
Some insomnia-fueled comments…
“I loved how Tarantino was playing the guy as brave and everything, but of course before the guy dies, he has to use some Jewish slurs…so we know that they’re beating to death a guy who’s not THAt good, really.”
Well, if you’re going to have a fearless Nazi character facing certain death in a matter of moments, him saying something like that makes sense all the same. The only weapon he has left is his words, so knowing they’re Jewish, and being a true blood anti-semite of a Nazi, it isn’t out of character is it?
“I meant that he didn’t get crazy violent until she SHOT him in the back. And you’re not supposed to feel like he deserved it when she did it, as she actually feels sorry for him for the first and last time.”
He was already violent, if not crazy violent, and in that situation, only an utter fool would think that Shoshanna wasn’t in imminent peril of being attacked if she wasn’t 100% obedient. This was the scene for me that destroyed EVERYTHING that Tarantino had set up with Shoshanna and Stoller because turning Stoller into an egocentric “I’ll take you against your will if I have to” nutcase was just completely fucked up and cheeseball.
That scene would have had some real punch to it if somehow he’d gotten into the projection booth by opening up in some way to Shoshanna about the artifice of the film vs. the real battle. How he wasn’t brave but shitting himself in that tower the whole time and praying to God not to let him die. THEN he could have accidentally caught on to the plot and Shoshanna would have had to kill him; or maybe she just shoots him as a small act of mercy to spare him a fire-engulfed death, I don’t know.
I just really detest the way Stoller’s character was 180’d in that room.
“The relationship doesn’t go anywhere from when it’s introduced. He likes her, she despises him for being a Nazi. So, there’s no growth.”
She can despise him for being a Nazi but still find herself getting an affection for the guileless film-loving side of this stray puppy who won’t go away and leave her alone. That was the growth that seemed to be developing up until the last reel of the picture when Stoller suffered a mild stroke in his frontal lobe or something and stormed her projection booth.
“Eli Roth = Tarantino’s Rebecca Pidgeon.”
That is one hell of a good point.
“But what is the great plot of Pulp Fiction? How do you narrow that down to a TV GUIDE synopsis?”
What’s great about the plot of Pulp Fiction is the fact that for a TV Guide synopsis to do it justice the movie would need an entire page of its own. I mean, you could boil it down to “the lives of various Los Angeles criminals bizarrely intersect in a chronological blender”, but it doesn’t really come close to nailing the movie, does it?
For all the talk that Pulp Fiction is just a blab-a-thon, honestly, that’s bullshit. Almost every conversation or monologue has a direct contribution to scenes of action and plot, like a pool stick getting ready to hit the cue ball and send the table scrambling in every direction.
“And you, christian, are willing to debate the depth of this one scene that maybe lasted 5 minutes in a close to three hour film.”
Yes, because the premise of your question was to question any depth in the film. I brought these scenes up as my point — which last longer than five minutes by the way, not including the long initial meeting between Stoller and Shosanna, another sad scene as he tries to break through the unbreakable.
I could talk about the farmer in the opening, or the underground cafe and Wilhelm, but you clearly have a Syd Field/Jeff Wells “have to like the character” thing going on here that doesn’t apply. Who did I like or sympathize with in GOODFELAS? I didn’t like Stoller going angry at the end either, but it makes sense. I felt for some of the characters and nothing for others. That’s a better ratio than most films I see, and it also has to do with characters touching a human nerve, and I think Tarantino does this.
Well Hallick, I think making the Nazi officer NOT an anti-Semite would have been more interesting, and probably more realistic. A lot of soldiers were just thrown into that war, and I doubt all of them were anti-Jew…but they were part of the machine. And I think showing the Basterds killing this guy who had honor and wasn’t shown to be anti Jew would have been interesting.
However, I like your take on Stoller’s death way more than what Tarantino did. That’s the mark of a real movie made by an adult, while Tarantino’s, while great, is still made by a man-child.
Ok, some words are being put in my mouth.
Lex, I’m not about stringent 3 act writing conventions. And I appreciate the breaking of the rules in “Pulp Fiction,” which I did enjoy, but don’t think is worthy of Best Picture either. Best Screenplay, yes.
The differences between the two are that one is new and innovative for its time. The other is now imitative and unoriginal in premise. There have been soooo many QT knockoffs and imitators, what he brings gets diluted. Style and sensation alone does not a Best Picture make. It can make a fun ride, like “300,” if that’s what you are in the mood for, but an Oscar has to go to a film that isn’t empty.
And Christian, I don’t have to like the character. I do want him to HAVE a character that is multi-faceted for a film to be considered for Best Picture. It’s kinda like the bit in “The Color of Money” when Newman tells Cruise he’s a great character and Cruise swells up. Then Newman deflates him with no you don’t have character, but you are a terrific flake. “Goodfellas” didn’t have likeable characters, but they were fully realized. Do you get what I’m saying?
I didn’t realize you were talking about all the Stoller scenes as you seemed focused on the last one (hence the five minute comment, which was not intended as a dig).
I too can talk about the farmhouse scene. Outside of a phenomenal acting performance from Waltz, what else is there? Indeed, not knowing what to expect, I thought the gorgeous daughters were going to turn into super spy/assassins and kill all the men outside while this scene took place. And while I think LEX would enjoy that movie even more, that’s not why I’m ultimately disappointed.
QT plays on the cliche that is a Jewish family hiding under the floorboards. Who isn’t going to want a Jewish family to escape death from Nazis? And it’s really just a very long set up for Shoshanna’s story and establishing that Waltz’s character is a right bastard in his own right.
Of course, QT vitiates this scene by having Waltz do a 180 in character for no reason in the final act. And the one moment in the restaurant between Waltz and Shoshanna comes and goes with no impact on either character. So, all we’re left with is a real great acting bit for Waltz.
Oh, and I agree with you, Hallick on how I would have developed that relationship too. Thank you for commenting.
Is it really that much of a no-reason 180? I assumed Landa was plugged in enough to realize the jig was up and decided to cut a deal to save his own ass. Not really all that out of character for a man who was clearly an egotist.
The jig wasn’t up…all he had to do was make that one phone call and they get Hitler and the bigwigs out of there…and Landa is a hero.
I don’t think though, that an Oscra has to go to a picture that “isn’t empty” or maybe we could use the words “that is weighty.” I think a movie like Jaws could have won…it had a lot of character detail and it’s a great movie, but it’s not an Oscar type of movie. Star Wars could have won it for all I’d care. But shit, if I was in charge Dawn of the Dead would have one.
Cadavra,
How was the jig up? Within the context of the film, the Nazis are winning. They just killed two of the Basterds in the bar and now have four more (and yes, Lex, I don’t know where BJ Novak is captured either which bugs the crap out of me), including the ring leader.
And if it is Landa’s plan all along to switch sides, why kill the actress? Especially since it’s for a crime he is about to commit in a matter of minutes.
The foundation of the character is that he is THE Nazi of all Nazis. He succeeds where others fail. He is that committed. Any reason any person comes up with is being imprinted onto the story because it simply isn’t there in the script or the performance.
The Big Perm:
I don’t need a film to be weighty. I too would not mind if “Jaws” or “Star Wars” had won. Each had a good story and excellent character development.
“Inglorious Basterds” is a vaccuum of a film. It’s the lacking that has my hackles up. The emperor has no clothes.
By “jig” I didn’t mean the Basterds’ plot but the war itself. The Allies were clearly advancing, and Landa knew that rounding up a few lone wolves would not stem the tide. He saw a way to save his own hide and he went for it.
Hendhogan, how much depth were you craving out of a movie called INGLORIOUS BASTERDS? You’re hung up on something that isn’t necessarily what people around the world enjoy about the film.
Christian, enough depth to be talking about a Best Picture nod.
I enjoy stupid, fun movies like anyone else. I don’t expect them to be considered for awards though.
And Cadavra, the movie takes place before D-Day. At that point the Germans were winning. And yes, I’m completely aware of putting a film in historical context when the film doesn’t live within that same historical context is insane.
So, to sum up, I’m hung up on Academy nominated films containing a plot, preferably a theme to go along with it, decent characterization with character arcs that grow organically from the character as opposed to simply being imposed on them.
None of those things are contained within the film “Inglorious Basterds” as admitted by people here who like the film.
I don’t think that is asking to much.
You’re asking for consistency from the Academy Awards? And you have a list with “plot, theme, character arc” that artists must cater to in order to win? Syd Field called — he wants his book back!
Yeah, I love how so many of us cinephiles stew over what’s “Oscar-worthy” or not, while almost always disagreeing with Oscar’s actual choices.
I’d have to get a second look at Basterds before wading too deep into this debate, but I will say it totally engaged me. The focus on multiple characters probably does prevent any one of them to be fully fleshed out in a conventional sense, but it was enough for me, for this particular story anyway.
There you go again, making assumptions, christian. One, never read the book, don’t plan to. Two, the structure is one of the things I DON”T have a problem with. But it makes this a one trick pony movie.
Clearly, that’s enough for you. I’m going to make an assumption now. You are impressed with the “oh, shiny” aspect of the movie. That’s enough for you. Fine.
I wholeheartedly admit I am not a fan of QT or his movies. But I do appreciate and like the innovation he brought to story structure. But innovation of story structure by itself is unimpressive if you can’t build in three dimensional characters and tell a compelling story. I would recommend looking into the works of playwrights Stephen Poliakoff and Dennis Potter. Both play with structure in what is a very hidebound industry, theatre. And do it well.
“Inglorious Basterds” confuses cliche with character development. The plot is beyond laughable. We’re supposed to believe there are only two guards on the door of balcony when ALL of the Nazi high command is there. What’s the reasoning behind waiting to the fourth reel to destroy the theatre, by either Shoshanna or the Basterds that explosives on their ankles.
christian, for a person who marvels at the wonders of how the story is put together, you seem to settle for the simple in almost every other aspect of the movie. I wonder if this were not a QT movie, would it be so praiseworthy.