Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds (2009, Directed by Quentin Tarantino)

I must admit that I feel a bit “behind the curve” when discussing Quentin Tarantino’s new film Inglourious Basterds. The film has been in theatres for nearly two weeks. Since its release, hundreds of amateur and professional critics have dedicated thousands upon thousands of words to virtually every aspect of Tarantino’s movie. I have seen the picture twice now and have read much of what has been written about it, both in print and on the Internets. I feel that I have very little to add to the conversation that hasn’t already been articulated somewhere along the way. Therefore, rather than offering a “review” in the conventional sense, I’ve decided to simply talk about my feelings toward Tarantino as a director, and how the latest addition to his oeuvre validates my view of the celebrated director’s output.

Watching Inglourious Basterds for the second time at a north side Chicago multiplex this weekend, I reflected upon why Tarantino is one of my favorite directors. I am a self-described “film geek.” I love to watch, think about, talk about, and write about movies of all different genres and time periods. Therefore, I’m a part of Tarantino’s target audience in many ways. I love watching Tarantino’s pictures, but I love hearing him talk about movies even more. Tarantino simply knows more about movies than almost anyone alive. He has watched and thought carefully about more films than I will ever have time to pursue in my lifetime. His vast knowledge and passion for all things cinematic make him a critical and film-geek darling. His movies are peppered with obscure film reference upon obscure film reference.

But … vast knowledge of film history and technique is not enough to make a great film. I thought of other film directors who have a similar passion and knowledge for the art of cinema, but do not make films that resonate with their audiences on the same level as a Pulp Fiction or a Reservoir Dogs. What is the difference between Quentin Tarantino, who has not only managed to make the film geeks and movie critics fall in love with him, but also continually reaches a more mainstream audience, and a filmmaker who possesses similar filmic knowledge and cinematic abilities, but whose pictures remain more obscure (say, Jim Jarmusch, for example)?

I think the answer is bound up in a word that probably doesn’t come up enough in film criticism today … fun. Tarantino stubbornly refuses to inject his films with moralizing lessons for the good of humanity or arty cinematic tropes only understood by the most dedicated cineastes among us. Pulp Fiction is simply fun. The plot, which includes a horrific heroin overdose, a watch stuck in an uncomfortable position, and a messy accident in a car involving a misfired gun and a young man’s head, is not fun. The way Tarantino tells the story is. When asked to name my favorite films of all time, I used to say “Vertigo, because it shows us that cinema can make us feel, Citizen Kane, because it shows us that cinema can make us think, and Pulp Fiction, because it shows us that cinema can make us have fun.”

What is so fun about the worlds Tarantino creates in his movies? Tarantino joins the ranks of great directors in history, Howard Hawks and Preston Sturges among them, who create utterly engaging dialogue. I would listen to Travolta and Jackson talk about cheeseburgers and foot massages any day of the week. I wasn’t bored by one second of Death Proof, even though the first hour contained an almost non-stop stream of dialogue. I simply love spending time with Tarantino’s characters, as creepy as they may be at times.

One of the other supreme joys of Tarantino’s work is his play with structure and storytelling technique. Tarantino is never content to tell a story in a conventional, linear fashion. He destroys all sense of time, allowing events to unfold before us in the way that is most logical to the plot and the movie’s overall effect. Rather than seeming like a hackneyed gimmick, Tarantino’s “time play” lends credibility and interest to the stories he tells. Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill are so engaging partially because they challenge us as viewers to construct our own understanding and context for the events unfolding before us. Samuel L. Jackson’s famous monologue at the end of Pulp Fiction works so well because we know things that he and John Travolta don’t know about what will happen to both characters in the future.

These observations about the “fun” of QT bring me to Tarantino’s glourious [sic] journey through Nazi-occupied France. Yes, I loved Inglourious Basterds. No, it is not historically accurate. No, it does NOT deny the Holocaust. Yes, it is graphically violent at times (although in a surprisingly restrained manner). Yes, it does contain one of the greatest openings of any film I have ever seen. Yes, Christoph Waltz gives one of the best performances of the year. Yes, Brad Pitt is both amusing and annoying as all get out in his role as a Southerner whose job is to “kill Naaazis.” No, Eli Roth cannot act. Yes, the David Bowie song near the end of the film serves the narrative perfectly well. Yes … it is really, really fun.

Are Tarantino’s fun-inducing abilities reason enough to hail him one of the great auteurs of our time? Probably not, if it weren’t for the fact that Tarantino is also one of the great technical artists to ever stand behind the camera. Inglourious Basterds, in fact, might just be his greatest achievement on a technical level yet. At least two scenes are absolutely flawless in the way they build dramatic suspense for a long period of time, only to explode in shocking violence. They are both an improvement upon, and a logical conclusion to, the “adrenaline” scene from Pulp Fiction and the “ear” scene from Reservoir Dogs.

One slight word of caution: If you are planning to see Tarantino’s new movie just because you are fascinated with WWII … don’t. Inglourious Basterds is no more about WWII and Hitler than Pulp Fiction is about hit-men in Southern California. Tarantino uses the basic historical context as a canvas to paint upon. He uses the narrative contexts of Hitler, a band of Nazi-scalping Jewish-American soldiers, and German propaganda films to convey interesting truths about his chosen characters.

If, on the other hand, you are dying to see a movie that doesn’t insult your intelligence and displays an astounding degree of originality and care in production, you should check out QT’s latest offering. Get ready to be wowed by, as Alfred Hitchcock once stated, “pure cinema.” Did I mention, by the way, that it’s just a lot of fun?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S.: I am convinced that more words have been written on the Internet about Tarantino’s latest flick than the healthcare debate, Ted Kennedy’s death, and Michael Jackson’s memorial service combined. Here are just a few online discussions that I have found particularly engaging, amidst all the hype:

Jim Emerson’s Scanners blog:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/08/contra-basterds.html

Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule:
http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/2009/08/talking-inglourious-basterds-final.html

Glenn Kenny’s Some Came Running:
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2009/08/tarantinos-minimalist-maximalism.html

Filmspotting, from Chicago Public Radio:
http://www.filmspotting.net/

Movie Review: Taking Woodstock (2009, Directed by Ang Lee)

Ang Lee’s latest film Taking Woodstock strangely resembles the famed 1969 cultural event in its structure: rambling, free-spirited, and tripped out … man. Lee and company take one of the most important cultural and musical events of the 20th century’s latter half and give it the ol’ cute and farcical treatment. We’re left with a film that is only intermittingly engaging. Most of the time, I was left wanting less of the sex and drugs and more of the rock n’ roll.

Ang’s first tactical error is casting Comedy Central comedian Demetri Martin in the lead role. Martin plays a young man who, in an attempt to save his parents’ failing hotel in the Catskills, plays a pivotal role in making the Woodstock Music and Arts Festival a reality. I deeply respect Martin’s work as a comedian. I find his deadpan style when delivering jokes about “important things” like chairs and pillow fights quite amusing. As an actor, however, Martin simply sits on screen. Not one ounce of energy radiates from his austere face. This stoical approach works sometimes. However, Martin is in deep trouble each time he is required to show the least bit of emotion.

Minor characters inform us that Hendrix, The Who, Joplin, and Jefferson Airplane are playing Woodstock. The film provides us no visual or audio evidence that these extraordinary musical acts graced the stage in upstate New York, however. In fact, the music is such a small part of Lee’s narrative that we pretty much forget that any great music happened there at all. I would not want actors trying to portray Hendrix or Joplin performing on the Woodstock stage. I would simply like to know more about how the musicians were booked for the gig, how they got to the performing venue—transportation was a major issue with the New York freeway backed up for miles upon miles, and what the performers thought about the energetic, yet tripped-out crowd. None of these questions are given one second of consideration in Lee’s version of the Woodstock experience.

Martin’s character undergoes a transformation throughout the picture. In the beginning, he is a shy, quiet young man whose main concern is helping his parents survive and keep their business. By the end, he is ready to put flowers in his hair, join up with the hippies, and head to San Francisco, leaving his East Coast existence completely in the dust. Man … that must have been some far out acid he dropped in that one scene. Martin’s transformation feels insincere because the actor fails to exude any truth in his portrayal of the character.

Many will want to see Taking Woodstock simply for a nostalgia trip. If you must … you must. I would suggest, though, checking out an informative and well-made documentary by Barbara Kopple called Woodstock: Then and Now. It’s been playing lately on both VH1 and The History Channel. Unlike Lee’s fictional account of the event, Kopple’s documentary doesn’t forget that music happened on that hill in the Catskills.

Movie Review: District 9 (2009, Directed by Neill Blomkamp)

District 9 is essentially a B-level alien movie with a conscious. Like many of the beloved low-budget sci-fi/horror films of the 1950s (The Blob, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, etc.) South African director Neill Blomkamp’s debut film attempts to engage with some of today’s pressing social issues while simultaneously giving the audience a fun experience. At times, it succeeds. At other times, Blomkamp tries too hard to inject “Significance” into a film whose second half focuses primarily on “blowing things up real good.”

If you’ve been to a major film or watched any television in the last few months, chances are you have seen the trailer for District 9. The basic plot is revealed in the promotional materials for the film, but here’s a quick re-cap: A race of aliens have made contact with Earth. The creatures are quarantined by the South African government in a ghetto known as District 9. Sharlto Copley plays a field operative named Wikus van der Merwe, who works for a private company charged with controlling the aliens. Multi-National United (MNU) has an interest in trying to figure out how to make the aliens’ technologically-advanced weapons work. Copley is arrogant and timid at the same time as he goes about the business of moving the aliens out of District 9. However, Copley undergoes an unexpected, accidental physical transformation that has profound implications for him, his fellow humans, and the alien race.

District 9 is to be commended on a number of fronts. First-time actor Sharlto Copley is refreshingly nuanced in the lead performance. He brings out the many shades of van der Merwe’s personality, from intolerance to selfishness, from arrogance to helplessness, from ignorance to timidity. In addition, the special effects in Blomkamp’s movie work quite beautifully most of the time. He succeeds in creating a world that is both believable (the backdrop of Johannesburg is authentic) and creatively creepy (the aliens are quite disturbing to look at throughout the movie). At the very least, Blomkamp has succeeded in creating a mildly thought provoking summer entertainment.

The problem is that the film is not nearly as profound as it pretends to be. District 9 is obviously meant to be read as an allegory encompassing contemporary issues of apartheid, racism, “ghettoization,” and cultural arrogance. The attempt at engaging the audience in important issues is commendable. Blomkamp’s screenplay just lacks the subtlety needed to explore these social problems with the complexity appropriate to such large subjects.

The other major problem is the entire second half of the movie. While I found the first half heavy-handed in its approach to apartheid and other political travesties, the second half condescended to the hackneyed clichés of summer action pictures. It’s almost as if the director lost interest in the deep issues he raised in the first half, and decided to just blow things up for an hour or so.

In District 9, we have a wonderful idea for a movie. I would love to see the short film upon which the full-length movie was purportedly based. I have a feeling it might not suffer from the same overbloatedness that plagued much of the complete film. Nevertheless, Blomkamp is off to an interesting start, and I’m anxious to see what he’ll do next. Actor Sharlto Copley has a similarly bright future ahead of him. Now he needs to star in a movie that has a better understanding of what it’s trying to be.

Movie Review: Adam (2009, Directed by Max Mayer)

British actor Hugh Dancy accomplishes something bold and brave in the new indie film Adam. Dancy plays a young man with Asperger’s Syndrome, an autism-spectrum disorder still relatively new in its diagnoses and arguably misunderstood by a large segment of the general public. The fact that Dancy plays a man with autism is not in and of itself spectacular. The real accomplishment is the fact that Dancy plays the man with such empathetic subtlety. While watching this film, I thought a lot about how far movies have come since Rain Man in their attempt to depict people with autism with both dignity and accuracy.

Adam is a 30ish New Yorker who has been recently devastated by his father’s death. He now lives alone in the apartment once inhabited by him and his father. Adam works for a toy manufacturing company as an electronic engineer. He is talented in his work, but sometimes is criticized by his supervisor for not working quickly enough and focusing too much on the details, a trait common for people on the “spectrum.” Into his life marches Beth Buchwald (Rose Byrne) a young, cosmopolitan school teacher. When Beth moves into Adam’s apartment building they develop a complex and ambiguous relationship.

Adam is fascinating in the way it explores the implications of Asperger’s debilitating effects in human relationships. As Beth comes to terms with Adam’s condition, she finds ways of effectively communicating with him and helping him to relate better to others. Of course, no matter how hard caring people try to help those on the spectrum, problems will inevitably arise. Beth is not perfect in how she relates to Adam. This character’s lack of perfection was actually one of the film’s more refreshingly authentic elements.

Dancy’s nuanced performance is so compelling and Byrne is so sweet in her role as Beth that I am tempted to stop the discussion of the film here and not even tell you about the rest of the film. It pains me to say that the filmmakers found it necessary to include a contrived subplot about Beth’s parents. Her father, a Wall Street broker, has been indicted for financial crimes and misdemeanors. The film follows his trial and its aftermath. Both of Beth’s parents question her relationship with Adam. We get to watch them fit into the stereotypical roles of intolerant parents who don’t understand the way things are in the modern world. I have been thinking about the part of the film dealing with Beth’s parents ever since I first saw it. I still don’t understand why writer-director Max Mayer found it necessary to cram in this distraction. Adam and Beth’s relationship is so fascinating. Why can’t we just see more of it?

The annoying parent subplot diminishes this film’s status from “masterpiece” to “good.” It’s the kind of film I can see buying on DVD and fast-forwarding through the unnecessary scenes. Then, I would have a five-star movie on my hands.

Despite its major flaws, Adam moved me emotionally in a profound way. Anyone who has, or is close to someone who has an autism-spectrum disorder should be proud of Dancy’s brave portrayal. The film offers not only an accurate understanding of this increasingly-common affliction, but also hope for those who live with the condition every day.

On one hand, I am sorry that this small film probably won’t play on very many screens. On the other hand, a bigger budget would probably come with an insistence on “Hollywoodizing” the story. This would not be a good idea. Adam is currently playing in several big cities, including L.A., New York, and Chicago. It will come out on DVD soon. Please see it if you get the chance. It is so rare to walk way from a film knowing that you have not only witnessed a great performance, but have also gained a better understanding of a widespread condition on which we all need to be better educated.

Movie Review: Paper Heart (2009, Directed by Nicholas Jasenovec)

To quote the late lyricist Lionel Bart: “Must I travel far and wide? / ‘Til I am beside … the someone who / I can mean something to / Where is love?” Indeed. This burning question is at the center of director Nicholas Jasenovec’s docu-comedy Paper Heart.

It’s nearly impossible to classify this movie by genre. It’s a documentary, I suppose, although much of the film is scripted and/or improvised by actors embodying fictional roles. It’s a fictional comedy, although parts of it are tragic and parts of it feature “real” people talking about seemingly real incidents. It’s a love story, although it doesn’t end like a conventional one. I’m tempted to just throw my hands in the air and admit that I don’t have a clue what the heck it is. This movie is more postmodern than postmodernism itself.

Comedian-actor-musician Charlyne Yi (a real person, I guess) says that she has never experienced real love. So, she decides to travel the country and interview various people about their own definitions and experiences of love. Along the way, she comes in contact with real-life actor Michael Cera (of Juno fame) who may or may not be falling in love with her. But, is Yi falling in love with him?

An actor playing the film’s real director frequently appears on screen to comment on the action and discuss the making of the film with Yi. Why didn’t the real director of the film decide to play himself? Is he trying to make some comment about identity in the digital age? Is he just shy of the camera? As Yi and Cera’s relationship develops, they become increasingly dissatisfied with every second of their relationship being captured on film.

When the movie showed at various film festivals earlier this year, it was assumed that Cera and Yi had a real relationship off-screen that found its expression on-screen. The truth, as it turns out, is that their relationship was completely fabricated for the camera. Some critics and bloggers are truly upset by this revelation, feeling that the movie has deceived them somehow. Personally, I think the film is way too complicated in its postmodern confusion the way it is. One more bizarre twist in the unconventional fabric doesn’t matter that much.

The only thing that does truly matter is whether or not the film is entertaining. I would answer this concern with a tentative yes. Some scenes work much better than others. Much of the “real” interview footage of long-time couples is insightful and sweet, reminiscent of the interview interlude scenes from When Harry Met Sally. Some of the scenes involving Cera and Yi’s relationship work, and some don’t. Occasionally, the movie gets too cute for its own good, especially in bizarre reenactments of key scenes performed by puppets in front child-like settings. But, as long as you’re not looking for anything particularly profound, Paper Heart can be recommended. At the end of the film, Yi still is not convinced for sure that love exists. But, she’s had fun along the way. So has the audience.

Movie Review: Julie & Julia (2009), Directed by Nora Ephron

There is a television ad currently playing every few minutes for Nora Ephron’s new film Julie & Julia. In it, we see a reconstruction of an old black & white television clip from Julia Child’s cooking show, with Meryl Streep as Child. No matter how many times I see this ad, I am convinced that I am watching a commercial for a PBS special about the real Julia Child. This is how compelling I find Streep’s performance.

Streep captures not only the talent and professionalism of the late Child, but, more importantly, the sheer joy in the heart of this culinary icon. She approaches everything, whether it’s cooking, talking to her empathetic husband, or trying to write a book on cooking, with the kind of exuberant emotional commitment that many of us wish we could emulate, even if for only one hour of the day.

The fact that Streep’s performance is so virtuosic means that the rest of the film is a bit of a disappointment. As everyone is probably aware by now, Ephron’s movie tells the parallel stories of Child becoming a chef in Paris while her husband is in France on a diplomatic mission, and that of Julie Powell (Amy Adams) a 21st-century young professional who spends most of the movie griping that she lives in Queens rather than Manhattan. Powell finds some satisfaction by cooking her way through Child’s seminal The Art of Mastering French Cuisine and blogging about the experience. The fact that Adams seems like a lightweight compared to Streep is not entirely the young actresses’ fault. How can the story of a very ordinary young woman trying to vent her frustration through culinary activity compare with that of an extraordinary American woman in Paris starting a revolution?

When Ephron’s film focused on Child’s story, my eyes were glued to the screen. I was not only wowed by Streep, but also by Stanley Tucci, who plays Child’s diplomatic husband with a rare kind of sensitivity and grace. Chris Messina, on the other hand, plays Julie Powell’s completely uninteresting spouse and succeeded in causing me to nod off every time he spoke a line of dialogue.

Julie & Julia, in true Nora Ephron fashion, is far, far, far from perfect. It has so many flaws that I could write a book about it. But, Streep’s performance is one for the ages and should be seen by anyone who loves to watch master actors at work. The film also made me quite hungry. Bon appetite!

Movie Review: Funny People (2009, Directed by Judd Apatow)

Why is it so dang hard to make a great movie about comedians? While many films have tried to depict the day-to-day struggles of professional funny folk, few have succeeded in portraying comics with the complexity and grace befitting their profession. Perhaps Martin Scorsese’s The King of Comedy, starring Robert DeNiro and Jerry Lewis, comes closest to creatively presenting the comedic life. However, many would consider Scorsese’s quirky film a minor work when placed alongside the master director’s weightier classics. So, is it even possible to make a “serious” film about the world of stand-up comedy?

Into the intermittently interesting world of “dark films about comedians” comes Judd Apatow’s third film proper, Funny People. Adam Sandler, in a particularly nuanced performance, plays George Simmons, a former stand-up comic who has made his fame and fortune by playing juvenile roles in silly Hollywood blockbusters. Simmons learns he is afflicted with a terminal disease which will take his life within a year. He befriends a young performer named Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), who becomes his personal assistant. Wright not only contributes jokes to Simmons’ act, but also keeps him company during difficult times, even “talking” him to sleep at night. The famous Simmons then enters the world of Wright’s friends, young comedians who yearn for the kind of vocational success Simmons has had.

The first half of Apatow’s film delivers exactly what the title and trailer promise: people who are funny. Apatow adroitly balances the dark thematic elements surrounding Simmons’ disease with a series of naughty, yet linguistically sophisticated one-liners by Sandler, Rogen, and a supporting cast of talented comedian friends (played by the likes of Jonah Hill and Jason Shwartzman). Several scenes from the film’s first half are instant classics, textbook examples of effective screenwriting and perfectly-timed comedic acting. The movie is also peppered with several hilarious cameo appearances from celebrities, including James Taylor, Sarah Silverman, Paul Reiser, and Eminem.

Alas, I had so much fun for the first hour or so of Funny People that it’s sad to report that the film’s final act is a huge disappointment. Early on in the film, Apatow balances dark musings about mortality with anatomical jokes. Later, he unfortunately enters the world of Lifetime Channel melodrama. A major plot turn approximately 2/3 of the way through the film sucks the life right out of it. The “funny people” cease to be funny. Leslie Mann (notably, Apatow’s wife) over-acts her way through her performance as Sandler’s married love interest. Eric Bana appears in an uninspired turn as Mann’s Aussie husband. We watch a hackneyed love-triangle plot play out between Mann, Bana, and Sandler. The only real interest for the audience is guessing at which clichéd moment Apatow will choose to have mercy on the audience’s intelligence and end the dang thing.

Despite my extreme disappointment with the movie’s conclusion, I must emphasize how fun the film’s first half really is. The mentor-mentee relationship between Sandler and Rogen comes across as simultaneously authentic and quirky. It is a true pleasure to watch Sandler, Rogen, and all the young comedians try to one-up each other in inspired one-liners and clever banter. I am still on the Apatow bandwagon, as I believe he has proven himself one of the truly unique and influential voices in film comedy today. Next time, he just needs to hire a better story editor. I would like to see Funny People 2, with more emphasis on the funny people and less emphasis on the uninspired melodrama.