By Jake Howell jake.howell@utoronto.ca

From Cannes, 90 Seconds Of HATEFUL 8

In 2012, when there was a Django Unchained banner resting high above the Croisette, it felt like a poorly-kept secret that The Weinstein Company would be showing extended footage of Tarantino’s 7th film (this is after a few weeks of speculation that the film would be ready for Cannes, until it wasn’t).

And sneak us some Django they did. Three years ago, that event was more intimate—and more pertinently, the event was smaller. That year TWC showed only three films: The Master, Silver Linings Playbook, and then a number of memorable scenes from Django, and by the time it was over, everyone was pretty ramped up. And recall that all three films of those films were strong.

Weinstein’s panel this year showed sneak peek teasers of ten titles: Adam Jones, Southpaw, Carol, No Escape, The Little Prince, Macbeth, Tulip Fever, Hands of Stone, Lion, and The Hateful Eight.

By the end of it, with each one of them more or less informing us of the respective Academy Award winning/nominated talent (I mean, it’s Weinstein, c’mon), the films and trailer beats began to merge together as a shrug-worthy reel of “yup, those are movies alright,” and realistically very little stood out, including The Hateful Eight, which I’m up front about being in the tank for when it eventually hits my eyeballs.

Impressions: they’re hard and probably reductive, especially when we’re only given 90 seconds. I realize now that I wrote none for Tarantino’s film, because I was glued to the screen for as much information as possible. Still, nothing much to glean. The teaser opened with Samuel L. Jackson saying to a mysterious carriage, “Got room for one more?” which spoke to me as a line coming from QT himself, somehow; as if he’s trying to make sure he hasn’t overstayed his welcome with Django being universally understood as too long.

Yeah, man, we got room for one more. Don’t start writing novels just yet.

But realistically: this Hateful Eight footage was almost 100% dialogue. Basically zero violence. And in terms of lines, I didn’t hear anything that was really humming or notable—is that a bad sign? Hard to say. Previous trailers don’t have that issue. But Tarantino staples, like a pointed gun under a wooden table, were certainly back (though I’ll say that particular image felt like a retreading), and the tagline “Eight strangers / one deadly connection implies that the film is going to have more of a Reservoir Dogs feel in that stand-off scenario (or competing interests) way. I haven’t read the script, which has surely changed loads since its leak, but that’s the way it felt.

Other highlights from this demo, surprisingly, were from Adam Jones, a film where Bradley Cooper plays a high-end executive chef. I can’t say much distinctively about this—it’s a Bradley Cooper comedy/drama!—but it definitely had a stronger sense of artistic variation. Shots of food; a distinct element of pacing, like the film is going to be a three-course meal. It also featured “Trainwreck” by DFA1979, which is a sign of confidence to me. The screening led with this and closed with Tarantino, which felt deliberate, and perhaps another hint to overall quality to their 2015 slate.

Southpaw, featuring a totally busted-up and tattooed Jake Gyllenhaal, looks like it might actually be pretty interesting. It’s certainly looking stronger than the seemingly-mediocre Hands of Stone, a Robert De Niro boxing film that managed to show us its entire rote plot in 90 seconds.

No Escape – Owen Wilson is not a dramatic actor. He should not be in dramatic movies, especially some that look like they’re easily recut with the addition of Yakety Sax as a braindead romp. “How far will you go,” the film asks, “to protect the ones you love?” If it involves walking to a cineplex to see this unlikely motion picture event, that might be a difficult question.

Finally—and I know these thoughts are fairly disjointed—Alicia Vikander (Ex Machina) and Rooney Mara are sure to have a big year, given their two films apiece for Harvey. At the event Gyllenhaal was also trumpeted by Weinstein himself as having deserved a nomination for Nightcrawler, which he hopes to “get revenge” for with Southpaw. Maybe? Who knows. But the rest of the crop seemed a little too gimmicky, or perhaps a worthwhile attempt at awards. The Little Prince, mind you, did have some intriguing combinations of animation style, which was cool to see (think Pixar CG in one scene, stop-motion the second). Carol looked very strong, yet impossible to gauge—it’s not that kind of movie. But then again, we’re seeing Carol this week in the Competition, so stay tuned.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

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