One Line Review: Inland Empire
This morning I attended a press screening for David Lynch’s new film, Inland Empire. 10 a.m. screen time at the Toronto International Film Festival office and my growing irritation with Lynch’s tired “weird for the sake of being weird” motif notwithstanding, I went in with an open mind, hopes clinging to dear memories of Eraserhead, Twin Peaks, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, and so on. Alas, those hopes were dashed in little more than 20 minutes.
One Line Review of Inland Empire: Assuredly the most unwatchable, tiresome, self-indulgent, aimless, meaningless excruciatingly BORING film I’ve ever had the misfortune to witness.
The small screening room was full of critics and journalists, all of whom were visibly irritated and offended by Lynch’s audacity to pad this atrocious mess out to THREE FUCKING HOURS. An uncomfortable feeling choked the room. If it were anyone else, the theatre would have emptied in less than an hour. But because it’s David Lynch - “auteur” (read: out of touch filmmaker), they showed a paramount of patience and toughed it out. You just can’t walk out on a David Lynch movie, I sensed the writers feeling. I thought: “Oh yeah? WATCH ME.” After 1.5 gruelling, painful hours of nauseating boredom, I walked out. Dave Alexander took one for the team and stayed the full 3. Brave man. When we reunited, he advised me that I’d missed absolutely nothing.
I’m appalled by the notion that David Lynch has free riegn to create such cinematic gibberish with someone else’s money. He’s akin to Quentin Tartantino - who, mercifully, will now not be trusted so freely following the fabulous disaster that was Grindhouse. What I hate about people who earn the tearm “auteur” is that they inevitably forget how to make movies for people other than themselves. I’m bewildered by this. And still choking on the shit that was shoved down my throat this morning.
Comment by Chris Alexander — April 22, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Wow.
Just…wow.
Casually dismissing the work of Lynch and Tarantino in one angry blog entry.
David Lynch has done something that is incredibly rare in modern cinema. He has created a consistent, evolving language…a unique and personal code, mysteries and enigmas. That’s why his cultists and followers adore him. Because he speaks in visuals and tones that can be understood only if you are deeply familiar and entranced with his entire body of work. He has themes and rythms and obsessions that are inherently his and his alone. All of his films have been self indulgent. He is the perpetual oddball outsider, bucking trends and pursuing his own interests. From day one….even before Eraserhead.
The man is brave and viewers that weave themeselves into his world must be as well.
As critics, especially horror film critics, as those who consume MASS amounts of mostly junky cinema, we are occasionally at risk of being unable to slow down and appreciate a work of art….
I say a re-evaluation is in order!
Comment by FEEDBACK — April 22, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
It saddens me to read these comments. In the souless world of Hollywood “Made By Committee” cinema, Lynch and Tarantino are two of the mavericks who’ve managed to infiltrate that dick swallowing industry with the intent of imposing a rare authorial stamp upon the work they do.
It’s an unusual and commendable achievement and something cinephiles rightfully celebrate - or rather SHOULD celebrate - as opposed to rejoicing in the prospect that poor box office returns may diminish their chances of making personal cinema again. (Not that the GRINDHOUSE box office flop will TAME Tarantino’s intent.)
But what we’re you expecting from a DAVID LYNCH film anyway? [i]Freddy Vs. Jason[/i] part 2? It’s David Lynch for chrissakes! (I haven’t seen the film yet but it seems you went in with an already negative perception of his work. PLUS - 10 o’clock in the morning? Fuck that! Even CLOCKWORK ORANGE would suck at 10 in the morning!)
Hollywood cinema is so tired, the conventions are so overworked and the form is dead. Lynch and Tarantino have the audacity to play with the form. Why condemn them for it?
RUE MORGUE is supposed to be a sophisticated and critical voice in the genre. With that in mind, surely credit MUST be given to Tarantino’s DEATH PROOF for, among other things, its clever reworking of the sexual politics of the SLASHER sub genre.
For more musings on the virtues of Tarantino’s DEATH PROOF, check out our review on RUE MORGUE RADIO last week!
And as for the LYNCH flick, I’m going to see a press screening on Wednesday (At the far more CIVILISED time of 1 in the afternoon.) I’ll let you know what I think of it.
Comment by Jovanka — April 22, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
For the record, EVERYONE hated this movie. I expect you two asslickers to love it.
Comment by Chris"God of Thunder" Alexander — April 22, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
I haven’t seen it yet, so I can’t comment SPECIFICALLY on the picture, just the anti Lynch vitriol. Which is fine, your caustic opinion is your own.
But who the Sam Hill is this “everyone” you speak of?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inland_empire/
Comment by FEEDBACK — April 22, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
Yeah, but when have I ever cared about what EVERYONE else liked or didn’t like?
Do I look like a GOBBLE GOBBLE HEAD or something!
For the record, I fucking LOVED his last feature Mullholland Drive. And his stuff isn’t weird for the sake of being weird. It’s LEGITIMATELY weird. But it’s also accessible to those who intuitively understand his peculiar fetish with the strange illusional world of 50’s Americana Pop Culture and various other oddities of the human condition.
But I will see MULLHOLLAND DRIVE with an open mind, prepared for whatever hits me.
Comment by FEEDBACK — April 22, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
I mean….Inland Empire….
Comment by Dave — April 22, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
I’ll chime in here, seeing as I was at said screening. I’m a huge Lynch fan — I love almost everything he’s done — but Inland Empire was a huge disappointment. I enjoy that Lynchian weirdness, but part of why it works is all the other stuff going on around it. Rebel heroes, crazed gangsters, horrifying scenarios, hot cars, sultry women, noir atmosphere, outrageous violence, fantastic music and gorgeous visuals. Strip all of that out, save for a great soundtrack, add an hour, and you’ve got Inland Empire.
Sure, there are a handful of effective scenes, but almost nothing happens in this film for three hours. Lynch is playing doppelganger games that we’ve seen before and he’s bloated this film with his own clichés. The ominous non-sequiturs are tiresome, the dance number screams “weird for the sake of weird” and by the time the monkey – yes, a monkey! – appears at the end, I felt he was taking a piss.
Because it’s a Lynch film, there are all kinds of mysteries to unlock within it, but it’s such a laborious experience, devoid of viewing pleasures, they aren’t worth the effort to investigate, in my opinion. To top it off, it’s shot on video and looks crappy. Video doesn’t suit Lynch’s normally beautiful lighting and darkly lush colour palette, and too many close-ups are out of focus. I really wanted to like this movie, but I came out of the theatre hating it.
I hadn’t felt so let down by a filmmaker I really like since suffering through Death Proof. But at least that borefest was less than half the length of Inland Empire.
Comment by FEEDBACK — April 23, 2007 @ 2:57 am
“I hadn’t felt so let down by a filmmaker I really like since suffering through Death Proof. ”
In that case, I can’t wait for INLAND EMPIRE! I loved every single second of DEATH PROOF - so much so that I went again a second time and loved it even more.
Comment by FEEDBACK — April 23, 2007 @ 3:17 am
“To top it off, it’s shot on video and looks crappy. Video doesn’t suit Lynch’s normally beautiful lighting and darkly lush colour palette, and too many close-ups are out of focus.”
I gotta admit though - THAT legitimately worries me. Video? Yuck!
Comment by Jovanka — April 23, 2007 @ 8:48 am
I liked Mulholland Drive too. This was just something else, man.
Comment by Christ Alexander — April 23, 2007 @ 11:08 am
First of all, Feedback IS a gobble gobble head.
Secondly….I’m still in shock at the bile ladelled on Lynch, here! Shocked, I say! In fact, I’m borderline APPALLED!
Comment by Dave — April 23, 2007 @ 11:34 am
“I’m still in shock at the bile ladelled on Lynch, here! Shocked, I say! In fact, I’m borderline APPALLED!”
I gathered that from your wanton USE OF CAPS!
On that note, I was shocked and appalled at how disappointing Inland Empire is. It doesn’t matter how many great films guys like Tarantino or Lynch have made, it shouldn’t elevate them above criticism. I get the feeling that many film critics simply give movies like Death Proof or Inland Empire a pass because they don’t want to be the writer who “didn’t get it.”
Either way, watch the film before you decide it’s a crime against cinema to hate on a David Lynch film.
Comment by FDBK — April 23, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
“It doesn’t matter how many great films guys like Tarantino or Lynch have made, it shouldn’t elevate them above criticism. I get the feeling that many film critics simply give movies like Death Proof or Inland Empire a pass because they don’t want to be the writer who “didn’t get it.”
DEATH PROOF was fucking killer. Even if you don’t jive to the intense amount of dialogue (I enjoyed every bit of it), how can you deny the film when it bursts to life? That’s some of the greatest car crash shit ever filmed - and some of the most kick arse gang of girls ever put on film? And Kurt Russell was fantastic in it! Possibly my best Russell performance.
And how interesting it was to see the females terrorising the male - and reducing him to what is the standard role of the female in the slasher film - the whimpering, squealing helpless victim. Man, oh man. I really think you need to revisit DEATH PROOF and at the VERY least, take a look at the action sequences. They are DEADLY. As kinetic and dynamic as anything from DUEL.
And there are so many little moments peppered throughout the film that cleverly rework genre conventions (i.e. the little moment where Russell explains to Rose McGowan that it’s time to start getting scared NOW!) And that’s Tarantino’s great terrain. He finds these great little niches in conventional narrative structures to fuck with the audience expectations. And as for the intense talkiness - he takes his cues from the French New Wave in this regard. And it’s just one of the elements where he defies conventional narrative - or rather, classical Hollywood narrative.
I get the feeling that a lot of the flak he generates is from folks who condemn him for straying from the conventions of that form - even though he very consciously violates it.
Anyway, I don’t like DEATH PROOF coz I want to be the chone who “gets it.” I LOVE Death Proof because it is an inspired work from a truly brilliant cinematic brain.
See it again! It is a work of genius, head and shoulders above his MEDIOCRE contemporaries.
Comment by Dave — April 23, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
I don’t wanna offer too many comments on Grindhouse, as I’ve reviewed it for the next issue of the mag. But I will say I wholeheartedly agree about the action sequences, and I loved Kurt Russell’s performances. It’s just that there’s enough great stuff here for a short film, not a feature — the majority of it is boring. The dialogue feels like someone poorly quoting Tarantino a decade ago — particularly the cliche bits about how, like, totally awesome Vanishing Point is. As my girlfriend noted when coming out of the screening: “That guy has no idea how women talk when they’re alone.”
At the very least, you must’ve found something uncomfortable in the range-less performances of the stunt women characters, especially Marcy Harriell (the driver), who’s jive-talk comes off like a bad stereotype.
Props for trying to challenge convention but scorn for doing it so poorly. What kind of a filmmaker promises a “white hot” grindhouse experience and then has talking heads drone on for ten minutes about almost falling in a ditch? A filmmaker whose ego has outstripped his talent, I’d venture. And hey, every great filmmaker fucks up once in a while.
I saw Grindhouse twice. The second time confirmed my feelings, although it was tough to actually “see” Death Proof, with all the people standing up in front of me and walking out. OK, cheap shots aside, I’m really glad that the film found somewhat of an audience because I’d like to see more from Tarantino.
I’m curious as to what the 50-minute longer cut of the film he’s showing at Cannes will contain. Maybe a riveting 20-minute conversation about the virtues of sliced bread, a 15-minute diatribe about how amazing H.R. PuffnStuff really is, or — fingers crossed — more brilliantly-acted cameos from the director himself.
“Death Proof: A white-hot sleepathon at 200 zzz’s per hour!”
Comment by Jovanka Vuckovic — April 23, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
The meat between my ribs feel like it’s going to separate ’cause of Dave’s above post. Amazing.
Comment by Chris Proof Alexander — April 23, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
???
You know that Death Proof was fashioned in part as a tip of the hat and celebration of real life stuntwoman Zoe Bell, right? Bell did all the stunts in Kill Bill as Uma’s double. QT thought she was such a badass that she cast her as HERSELF (she plays Zoe Bell, the Kiwi hood rider). That alone adds a fascinating, cheeky, completely unique dimension to the picture. That and the fact that the film essentially remakes itself in its lean running time makes this a bold piece of funky film. And man, the score, the tunes are ALL dynamite and completely appropriate…from the use of the dirty blues serial killer anthem Staggolee when Stuntman Mike appears scarfing nachos to the theme from Bava’s Rabid Dogs to the closing credits ‘playa beware’ classic Chick Habit by April March…there’s just nothing else like this anywhere.
As far as how women talk…NO ONE talks like they do in a QT flick in real life, man. Ever! It’s an artiface! C’mon! Get with the program! You think Sam Jackson is anything else but a Sweet Sweetback ‘nigga please’ cliche in Pulp Fiction?
If you listen carefully to the dialogue, every word is completely relevant to the power play. The film has specifically designed rythms, akin to a car idling, cruising, roaring down the highway and mashing into the guardrail. It’s all intentional, all relevant and all absolutely essential to manipulating the viewer’s emotions. In many respects, this is the most challenging picture, aesthetically anyway, in the QT cannon. Absolutely first rate, audacious and dynamite entertainment.
And if you’ve seen any of the badass girlsploitation flicks of the 70’s, the tone is IDENTICAL!
Comment by Liiiiiiiisa — April 23, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
I love that you cats have gone off the Lynch rails like a bunch of crazy trains.
Comment by Dave — April 23, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
You know that Death Proof was fashioned in part as a tip of the hat and celebration of real life stuntwoman Zoe Bell, right? Bell did all the stunts in Kill Bill as Uma’s double. QT thought she was such a badass that she cast her as HERSELF (she plays Zoe Bell, the Kiwi hood rider). That alone adds a fascinating, cheeky, completely unique dimension to the picture. That and the fact that the film essentially remakes itself in its lean running time makes this a bold piece of funky film. And man, the score, the tunes are ALL dynamite and completely appropriate…from the use of the dirty blues serial killer anthem Staggolee when Stuntman Mike appears scarfing nachos to the theme from Bava’s Rabid Dogs to the closing credits ‘playa beware’ classic Chick Habit by April March…there’s just nothing else like this anywhere.
-The music is first rate, no argument there. Here’s the thing about making this a stuntwoman tribute or a movie in tune with the rhythms of a car or whatever other apologist crank you wanna make up: NONE of that should be the priority in a film called “Grindhouse.” If you wanna make a French New Wave tribute or an art film, than make that instead. Hell, I wonder if QT abandoned his original concept part way through production.
As far as how women talk…NO ONE talks like they do in a QT flick in real life, man. Ever! It’s an artiface! C’mon! Get with the program! You think Sam Jackson is anything else but a Sweet Sweetback ‘nigga please’ cliche in Pulp Fiction?
-Pulp Fiction isn’t selling any kind of realism, this film is doing that, in my opinion (in terms of the so-called girl-talk), which is probably why it fails so badly on that front — it’s out of sync tonally. Sam Jackson’s dialogue works in PF because he’s intentionally cartoonish to the point of having a wallet that literally reads “Bad Muthafucker.” Mary Hariell’s performance on the other hand yanks you right out of the film.
If you listen carefully to the dialogue, every word is completely relevant to the power play. The film has specifically designed rythms, akin to a car idling, cruising, roaring down the highway and mashing into the guardrail. It’s all intentional, all relevant and all absolutely essential to manipulating the viewer’s emotions. In many respects, this is the most challenging picture, aesthetically anyway, in the QT cannon. Absolutely first rate, audacious and dynamite entertainment.
-C’mon, man. No one should have to work that hard to force himself to like something. If anything it’s more like a car sputtering and dying in the slow lane, before managing one last burst of impressive speed at the end. I’d love to know how five minutes about almost falling in a ditch is relevant. If you gotta use that much hyperbole, I fear your denial runs deeper than we first suspected. Granted, though, he did manipulate my emotions. I went from mildly interested to bored, to frustrated to angry to suicidal to damn near comatose (if you can call that an emotion).
And if you’ve seen any of the badass girlsploitation flicks of the 70’s, the tone is IDENTICAL!
-I beg to differ, but regardless, it doesn’t make it any more watchable or anything close to delivering on what it promised.
Comment by Chris Alexander — April 24, 2007 @ 12:10 am
Okay man - this is goofy. We could bounce this jazz around till our dicks fall off. But I will leave you with this -my pal Wayne Carter, current VP of Sales, Warner Home Video Canada used to run a sleazy cinema on the East Coast during these years. And he pretty much concurs that Death Proof - the look of it, the sound of it, the angles, the pace, EVERYTHING was bang on to the American girl gang/action thrillers of the time. Stuff like Jack Hill’s Switchblade Sisters. And since this very smart, very schooled cinephile actually lived through these years and ate this shit up first hand…I’d say that Death Proof has every RIGHT to be in a film called ‘Grindhouse’!
Comment by Dave — April 24, 2007 @ 1:06 am
Hey, keep your jazz off my dick!
I quite like Switchblade Sisters, but I would’ve turned it off had it become My Dinner with Andre but in tight shirts for 45 minutes. Stuart mentioned on the radio show that Death Proof is more arthouse than Grindhouse, and therein lies the central problem for me. If I want to see an art film, I’m not going to go to a movie billed as “Grindhouse.” For me Rodriguez delivered, Tarantino didn’t.
Anyhow, it’s an interesting debate. Good to see the Caustic Critics fighting side-by-side… like the Wonder Twins.
Comment by FDBK — April 24, 2007 @ 1:07 am
As for the dialogue in DEATH PROOF, the Schizoid One is right to point out that it’s supposed to be hyper-stylised! I don’t think Tarantino is trying to write “naturalistic” dialogue. He has NEVER done that in his entire career. His dialogue is always a weird admixture of the Howard Hawks super fast talking, wise-crackin’ style and the Godardian (is that a word?) meandering pontifications about subjects contrary to the narrative “thrust” of the film. i.e. in Pulp Fiction, the characters have a conversation about hamburgers. What makes the conversation interesting is that they’re on their way to dispatch a few unfortunate motherfuckers. It’s a classic example of how Tarantino divorces his dialogue from the classical style in order to fuck with the genre conventions.
I’m sorry Dave, but you can’t criticise Tarantino’s dialogue in DEATH PROOF for not being “naturalistic.” That is NOT the point of it at all! It’s like criticizing a Monty Python film for not taking a sombre attitude towards its subject matter.
But obviously, you don’t dig it and that’s fine - but folks who claim he’s devolving as a filmmaker and who dismiss DEATH PROOF outright as “jibberish” are failing to acknowledge a wealth of stylistic and narrative innovations in the film.
GRINDHOUSE was the most fun I’ve had in the theatre in years. I absolutely loved the entire thing. It was a completely loving homage to a lost tradition in American Cinema - the exploitation film double feature. And unlike a lot of those films, GRINDHOUSE actually DOES deliver the goods promised in the posters. Unfortunately, it didn’t connect with mainstream audiences but that’s not because the filmmakers failed to deliver a kick-arse film. It seems to be due to the excessive running time and the general confusion over what to expect from the film.
Even the whole concept indicates a filmmaker restlessly playing with traditional cinematic forms - not just in terms of what goes INTO a film but even HOW the film is presented. The Double Feature with the fake trailers and the degraded look of the film and the missing reels, these are all very NOVEL ideas about how the film is exhibited. In that regard, I commend Tarantino highly for concocting what will probably remain as one of the most uniquely entertaining cinematic experiences of the year.
Such a maverick impulse and an outright AUDACITY to fuck with the traditions should be celebrated - NOT condemned.
And despite the poor US box office, I firmly believe that GRINDHOUSE will absolutely annihilate on DVD (and in Europe and elsewhere) - so don’t expect this failure to TAME Tarantino.
And as a side note (and a final remark) - may I suggest that there are a bazillion other hack directors working in the film biz at the moment who are probably MUCH more deserving of the sort of scorn we’re seeing dished out so wantonly on on this blog.
Comment by Dave — April 24, 2007 @ 1:41 am
Yeah, you’ve got a valid pont there about the dialogue. What I should’ve said is that he’s going for a more naturalistic, intimate sort of dialogue (what I’ve heard described as his Ya-Ya Sisterhood approach). He tried something new and it failed. Fucking with conventions is something to be celebrated indeed… when it works. When it doesn’t, it’s something to be interested in.
I’d defer to the excellent Globe and Mail article for a solid argument on Tarantino’s devolution as a filmmaker: http://www.rue-morgue.com/blog/archives/2007/04/09/the-devolution-of-quentin-tarantino/
Of course you make some excellent points, but you’re not going to get anywhere with the there-are-worse-filmmakers-out-there-so-how-dare-you defence. What, the guy’s critic proof? I’m more than willing to concede, and celebrate, the great parts of that film, but I haven’t read anything but sunshine, rainbows, unicorn parades and butterscotch enemas from the other side. Where’s the critical eye from the Critics? Or is this simply a perfect film?
I really hope Grindhouse does excellent on DVD. Every horror fan should see the films, I want to see more Grindhouse double features, not to mention that nothing would benefit Death Proof more than a “chapter skip” button.
Comment by FDBK — April 24, 2007 @ 6:17 am
“Yeah, you’ve got a valid pont there about the dialogue. What I should’ve said is that he’s going for a more naturalistic, intimate sort of dialogue (what I’ve heard described as his Ya-Ya Sisterhood approach).”
How is he going for a more naturalistic dialogue?
The dialogue is DEATH PROOF is classic Tarantino. It’s as hyper-stylised as anything he’s ever written.
I didn’t detect an attempt to change the style of his dialogue in that film.
The problem is, some actors deliver the stuff convincingly and make it their own (Kurt Russell). Others remind us of the artifice (Zoe Bell.)
Sure - Bell isn’t the greatest actor but she’s a great screen presence and the idea of using Uma Thurman’s Stunt Double as the lead in this flick was fantastic. (My GF had problems with Zoe Bell’s performance - which is surprising because she’s a Kiwi as well.)
But even the casting of Zoe Bell demonstrates his willingness to fuck with the form of how films are put together.
Anyway, it all comes down to a matter of taste. I thoroughly enjoyed every second of DEATH PROOF and its leisurely rhythms punctuated by moments of intense, kinetic HELLACIOUSNESS. I had no idea where the thing was gonna take me but I was more than happy to go along for the ride. I’ve seen it twice and I may even go a third time before it leaves theatres.
It’s likely to be the best genre film we’ll see this year (what’s there to look forward to? The HALLOWEEN remake? HOSTEL 2? SAW 10?) and I’ll always look back fondly at GRINDHOUSE for what it is - a genuine love letter to exploitation cinema and the lost tradition of how the films were once experienced. I don’t see a “Devolution” in any of it. I see audacity, innovation and an obsessive love of movies in every single, glorious digital frame.
:- FDBK
p.s. You’ve seen FASTER PUSSYCAT, right? Don’t you think the dialogue was vaguely reminiscent of that? In fact, I think QT takes a lot from the style of the dialogue in that film - rhythmically, it sounds like something he would write. Here’s a clip:
http://www.ruemorgueradio.com/Feedback/Pussycat.wav
It’s fantastic stuff, isn’t it?
Pure poetry and yet - refreshingly - not at ALL naturalistic. That’s the sort of thing QT goes for with his dialogue and in my opinion, succeeds tremendously.
He’s one of the greatest living American writers of screen dialogue. How dare that GLOBE AND MAIL Rick Groen arsehole talk about his “devolution!” Groen is characteristic of a class of chones who are are threatened by brilliance so they must diminish it in order to make their own inadequacies seem less severe. I see it all the time in the media - a fucked up tendency to champion mediocrity while downplaying works of genuine merit.
It’s like all the BOLL BASHING. People only hate him because he’s a bonafide cinematic genius!
(hehe. Just fucking with ya to see if you’re awake….BUT - I do think BOLL is a genius - just not a typically “talented” one.)
Comment by Liiiiiiisa — April 24, 2007 @ 9:28 am
In the Alexander vs. Alexander Grindhouse cagematch, I gotta vote with the Boss on this one.
Why don’t you all set up an Axe to Grindhouse 24 TV channel and just go at each other? Because this thread is WAY more entertaining than Death Proof!*
Comment by Jovanka — April 24, 2007 @ 10:13 am
You guys kill me. You’ve got your heads so far up Quentin’s ass, you’ve lost touch with reality. Seriously, it’s a sign of a poor critic when you can’t note a single flaw in a given movie. No film is perfect. Let’s be realistic here. If you were able to put your dicks (and Quentin’s) back in your pants for 30 seconds, you might notice how silly you look tirelessly defending a seriously flawed film.
Comment by CHIRS AXELDERAND — April 24, 2007 @ 10:42 am
Is there any irony in you calling Death Proof flawed and spelling it falwed?
I think a sign of a poor critic is someone who can’t look deeper into a work because it “bored them”. I see that as a sign of someone who cannot see below the surface of the art, a critic who dismisses rather than approaches analytically.
And for the record, if you listened to my RMR review - I don’t much love QT. I’ve always aknowledged him as an influence and someone who has molded a unique voice, but I fancied him an overrated filmmaker, or a very talented plagerist.
But with Death Proof, I saw a small, strange, pulpy world created that thrilled me, bored me, pissed me off, made me laugh, made me scream and ultimately pushed me into a state of bliss. These compound reactions to a work are not only evidence of a great film, but of a great EXPERIENCE period.
See, all the things you cite as falws, er I mean, flaws are the things that I am saying are intentional devices employed to manipulate the audience.
Plus, everyone’s a critic. Fuck that. Too many of those around anyway.
Comment by Dave — April 24, 2007 @ 10:49 am
How is he going for a more naturalistic dialogue?
-A lot of folks have pointed out that there’s not much in the way of quotable lines in Death Proof, and I agree. Overall, his characters aren’t trying to be as “bad ass” and declarative all
the time, with the exception of Hariell, whose performance is jolting.
The dialogue is DEATH PROOF is classic Tarantino. It’s as hyper-stylised as anything he’s ever written.
I didn’t detect an attempt to change the style of his dialogue in that film.
The problem is, some actors deliver the stuff convincingly and make it their own (Kurt Russell).
Others remind us of the artifice (Zoe Bell.)
-You mean they’re bad.
Sure - Bell isn’t the greatest actor but she’s a great screen presence and the idea of using Uma Thurman’s Stunt Double as the lead in this flick was fantastic. (My GF had problems with Zoe Bell’s performance - which is surprising because she’s a Kiwi as well.)
-So your girlfriend should like an actress because they both hail from the same country? As far as Bell’s performance goes, she’s a helluva stuntwoman and I enjoyed watching her when she wasn’t talking.
But even the casting of Zoe Bell demonstrates his willingness to fuck with the form of how films are put together.
-Or maybe he needed an actress to do her own stunts if the film was to work.
Anyway, it all comes down to a matter of taste. I thoroughly enjoyed every second of DEATH PROOF and its leisurely rhythms punctuated by moments of intense, kinetic HELLACIOUSNESS. I had no idea where the thing was gonna take me but I was more than happy to go along for the ride. I’ve seen it twice and I may even go a third time before it leaves theatres.
It’s likely to be the best genre film we’ll see this year (what’s there to look forward to? The HALLOWEEN remake? HOSTEL 2? SAW 10?) and I’ll always look back fondly at GRINDHOUSE for what it is - a genuine love letter to exploitation cinema and the lost tradition of how the films were once experienced. I don’t see a “Devolution” in any of it. I see audacity, innovation and an obsessive love of movies in every single, glorious digital frame.
-“In every single glorious frame”? That’s a lot of sunshine to blow. Not having much to look forward to doesn’t somehow elevate this film.
:- FDBK
p.s. You’ve seen FASTER PUSSYCAT, right? Don’t you think the dialogue was vaguely reminiscent of that? In fact, I think QT takes a lot from the style of the dialogue in that film - rhythmically, it sounds like something he would write. Here’s a clip:
http://www.ruemorgueradio.com/Feedback/Pussycat.wav
It’s fantastic stuff, isn’t it?
Pure poetry and yet - refreshingly - not at ALL naturalistic. That’s the sort of thing QT goes for with his dialogue and in my opinion, succeeds tremendously.
-In Faster Pussycat, the dialogue moves the story forward, it’s actually interesting and – get this! – stuff happens. We don’t have to watch one of the characters text message someone for two minutes. It’s a motion picture with… motion.
He’s one of the greatest living American writers of screen dialogue. How dare that GLOBE AND MAIL Rick Groen arsehole talk about his “devolution!” Groen is characteristic of a class of chones who are are threatened by brilliance so they must diminish it in order to make their own inadequacies seem less severe. I see it all the time in the media - a fucked up tendency to champion mediocrity while downplaying works of genuine merit.
-Indeed, how dare a journalist write a thoughtful piece critiquing an artist’s work! What was he thinking, saying something different?! Only Quentin Tarantino is allowed to swim against the tide, right? Clearly, anyone how would challenge his brilliance is a mental deficient. I’d venture that there just might be some critics out there scared to criticize an established filmmaker, instead doing intellectual back-flips to justify mediocre art. Or, maybe they just see something in there others don’t, and that’s fine too.
It’s like all the BOLL BASHING. People only hate him because he’s a bonafide cinematic genius!
(hehe. Just fucking with ya to see if you’re awake….BUT - I do think BOLL is a genius - just not a typically “talented” one.)
-I can’t wait to see his own exploitation project: “Grindhaus.”
Comment by chris! — April 24, 2007 @ 11:00 am
Jovanka! You cheater! You fixed your spelling thus rendering my post moot! DAMN YOU that was underhanded….
Comment by Dave — April 24, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Is there any irony in you calling Death Proof flawed and spelling it falwed?
-Dude, as the guy who edits your copy, you’re in no position to call anyone out for a typo. Heh heh.
I think a sign of a poor critic is someone who can’t look deeper into a work because it “bored them”. I see that as a sign of someone who cannot see below the surface of the art, a critic who dismisses rather than approaches analytically.
-Yeah, there’s no analysis of the film here at all. Boring is simply the result here of the many problems described above. On the flip-side, if you stare into a black hole long enough, I’m sure you’ll see all kinds of colours.
And for the record, if you listened to my RMR review - I don’t much love QT. I’ve always aknowledged him as an influence and someone who has molded a unique voice, but I fancied him an overrated filmmaker, or a very talented plagerist.
-I agree, he’s a legitimate plagiarist, or “plagerist.” I’m glad you acknowledged, or “aknowledged,” this. Seriously, though, I agree.
But with Death Proof, I saw a small, strange, pulpy world created that thrilled me, bored me, pissed me off, made me laugh, made me scream and ultimately pushed me into a state of bliss. These compound reactions to a work are not only evidence of a great film, but of a great EXPERIENCE period.
-Fair enough. I didn’t feel the thrills made up for that boredom and frustration.
See, all the things you cite as falws, er I mean, flaws are the things that I am saying are intentional devices employed to manipulate the audience.
-Totally, I’m just saying that they don’t work. If you’re going to manipulate me as a viewer, do it in a way that doesn’t make me want to walk out of the screening.
Plus, everyone’s a critic. Fuck that. Too many of those around anyway.
Comment by Jovanka — April 24, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Chris, it’s sad that you’re so desperate to defend yourself that you have to stoop to pointing out TYPE-O’s. Stop being so juvenile. If I was unable to see below the surface of a film, I wouldn’t have put something like Aftermath on our cover, which most critics have real trouble with.
All this coming from a man who championed Feardotcom….
Comment by Christo Cerda — April 24, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Hey you called me out as a poor Critic first, shmucky pants. I defended myslef the way Verne Troyer taught me too…with the low blow.
Note to all voyeurs reading this delightfully two fisted blog - many years ago I reviewed Bill Malone’s wanky Feardotcom in Rue Morgue. I gave it a bad review but praised Malone as a visual stylist who is very good at creating nightmarish imagery. I then went on to cite other films that are celebrated like The Beyond, films that are derrivitave and fail on narrative levels but dazzle due to their visual bravado. I stand by that but have been the unfortunate butt of many a laff with the RM staff ever since!
Phooey on you, Jovanka Vu.
Comment by Jovanka — April 24, 2007 @ 11:33 am
And what about Leprechaun: Back 2 That Hood, Chrissy?
Comment by FEEDBACK — April 24, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
“You guys kill me. You’ve got your heads so far up Quentin’s ass, you’ve lost touch with reality. Seriously, it’s a sign of a poor critic when you can’t note a single flaw in a given movie. No film is perfect. Let’s be realistic here. If you were able to put your dicks (and Quentin’s) back in your pants for 30 seconds, you might notice how silly you look tirelessly defending a seriously flawed film. ”
Ad Hominem, my dear.
Ad Hominem.
You practise it so well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Comment by Jovanka — April 24, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
“Ad Hominem, my dear.”
Yeah, it can be used as a formal fallacy. Perfectly fitting for you two.
Comment by Dave — April 24, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
I also have certain affinity for Leprechaun: Back 2 Tha’ Hood! Watched it on Christmas day a few years ago and it was a blast. It delivers the cheese with a side of shamrock.
Comment by FDBK — April 24, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
“I agree, he’s a legitimate plagiarist, or “plagerist.” I’m glad you acknowledged, or “aknowledged,” this. Seriously, though, I agree.”
Honestly, it’s ridiculous to label a filmmaker who very consciously makes “self referential” films as a plagiarist! Do you label Godard as a plagiarist of Hawks and Huston for making BREATHLESS? No, of course you don’t. References to other films are essential to the aesthetic of Tarantino. On a much more simple level, his films are generally ABOUT his love of films.
Comment by Dave — April 24, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
I meant it in a good way. The guy’s a collage artist, to be more exact, and a damn good one. He takes pieces from all over the place and comes up with something unique.
I think he really evolved with Jackie Brown, where he could reference pop culture without constantly having characters talk directly about it. In Death Proof, he’s back to having characters come out and say that such and such a film is totally rad! It feels dated in the Tarantino universe.
Comment by Blog Alexander — April 24, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Awww, go blog yerself the lot of ya.
Blog it out yer ear!
Comment by pureevilmatt — April 24, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
I posted this in the grindhouse thread, but i suppose it belongs here instead:
Jovanka likes entertainment more than art. Newsflash: To some people art is entertaining! Now I’ve not seen Inland Empire, so I’m reserving Judgment on it… I must however note that I love absolutely everything Lynch has ever done. At the same time I am fully able to accept and respect that someone else might not be able to appreciate his work. The core of Jovanka’s ridiculous anti-auteur point aside, I actually agree somewhat. Directors often need a counterbalance to temper their work to ensure it maintains it’s pure entertainment factor. But Lynch doesn’t aim for pure entertainment at all. The man covertly promoted THE STAR of his movie with a dairy cow on a street corner in Hollywood. Nobody fucking gets it… and that’s what makes it great. “Written & Directed by David Lynch” = “Audio Visual Poetry”. If you’re expecting prose or a completely coherent narrative, obviously his work is not for you.
On the subject of Tarantino… I think that he ensures the “pure entertainment factor” quite well by surrounding himself with a multitude of people to whom he relinquishes some degree of creative control, unlike most auteurs. I saw a documentary on the evolution of film editing a while back, and it had a segment with Tarantino and an editor that he uses on almost everything he does (I can’t recall her name at the moment). He knows he is not an impartial entity and as such cannot accurately judge the effectiveness of his own film, and to overcome his bias and to tailor his movies more toward his audience than himself, he essentially gives up control of the film to someone whom he trusts, with an entirely different perspective allowing her to decide what works and what doesn’t. He basically gives her final cut. Hardly an out of control auteur.
I do see some of the dialog in Death Proof as a definite detriment to the film… but overall, the movie delivers.
Comment by Brett — April 24, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
My cat’s breath smells like catfood.
Comment by Jovanka — April 24, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
“Jovanka likes entertainment more than art.”
I’ve been accused of many things, but never that.
This is the absolute furthest from the truth. When you see Inland Empire, chime in and let me know if you think it qualifies as art. I’d be happy to hear you out. As it stands Dave and I are the only ones who’ve seen it. We’re not obligated to like everything Lynch makes. In this case, we didn’t.
Rue Morgue consistently champions art films. Perhaps you should read it before you make blanket statements.
Comment by pureevilmatt — April 24, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
I assure you, I read Rue front to back, and then back to front on a regular basis. The objectional blanket statement was used to get your attention… no offense intended. It is honestly the impression I got… “BORING” isn’t a very useful descriptor for art. It seemed fairly clear to me that you were evaluating the film (or at least the parts you decided to stay for) as pure entertainment. I get that you found it contrived/uninspired/self indulgent/whatever, and as a result just did not find it interesting. I’m fine with that. That wasn’t really my point of contention anyways… it was that you somehow believe that lynch’s and tarantino’s ‘auteur cards should be revoked’ simply because you are evidently not their target audience. Despite your weak attempt at linking your dislike of two completely different movies by completely different directors with completely different goals, I actually agree somewhat with your assessment of Death Proof… but your opinion of Inland Empire certainly isn’t bolstered by the fact you walked out halfway through… Sure, it’s a statement, but it’s not very useful in the critical or analytical sense… as some of your colleagues have already pointed out.
Comment by FDBK — April 24, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
After spending the day at RUE MORGUE with a multitude of DEATH PROOF haters, I was starting to think I was crazy for loving the film as much as I do. Fortunately, I found a review that sympathises with much of my feelings about the film:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/movie_reviews/article/0,1426,MCA_569_5466315,00.html
Comment by Jovanka — April 24, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
“I assure you, I read Rue front to back, and then back to front on a regular basis. The objectional blanket statement was used to get your attention… no offense intended. It is honestly the impression I got… “BORING” isn’t a very useful descriptor for art.”
And I assure you, being the David Lynch fan that I am, that walking out on one of his films is saying a great deal. You’re right, under normal circumstances, BORING is a terrible word to use. Sadly, it was the most fitting. I’m not the only critic who was reduced to using the word either. Keep in mind guys, I’m not happy about this. I don’t enjoy trashing the man’s work. It just is how it is. Also, this is my blog, not the magazine. Here we’re free to have fun and, if necessary, vent. But I’m having a blast reading this trainwreck of a thread. It’s really funny - especially if you know Chris and Feedback.
Oh, and I have to disagree. Art CAN be boring. Just because it’s a thinking man’s movie, doesn’t mean it’s above being interminably… boring.
Comment by FDBK — April 24, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
After having a number of conversations about DEATH PROOF with people today, I get the sense that a lot of folks were frustrated by the film for the areas in which it deviated from classical narrative conventions - most specifically, the lengthy and often mundane dialogue scenes that are not directly CAUSALLY related to the action of the film.
For me, this was one of the great strengths of the movie. First of all, I’m a fan of the sort of films that inspire this tradition so I’m accustomed to the device but also, that those scenes linger on at such a lazy pace only built up my anticipation for what was going to unfold.
I had NO idea where DEATH PROOF was going so those lengthy dialogue passages only added to the suspense. I also got the sense that this was Tarantino’s homage to the good times he’s had hanging out with some of the cool motherfuckers he’s worked with on movies. The characters are essentially out to party and have a good time and Tarantino invites us along. Sure, perhaps some of the dialogue is mundane - but it’s purposely mundane - but it’s also quite multi-layered. The two groups of women are contrasted in very specific ways. What is it about the second group that allows them to so fully turn the tables on one of cinema’s most ICONIC tough guys - and why did I derive so much pleasure from watching them turn him into the whimpering mess we usually see women reduced to in the slasher flick?
Nevertheless, I loved the female actors in DEATH PROOF. I thought they were kick arse and I was more than happy to go along for the ride.
It seems silly to keep arguing the point. Obviously some folks dug the flick - some didn’t - but regardless of whether or not you liked the film, you should at least try to understand the INTENT of the film and why it deviates from conventional narrative structure.
Because whether or not you believe it was a success, you have to admire the intent.
You HAVE to!
I insist.
And by the way, if all goes according to plan, I’ll be checking out INLAND EMPIRE tomorrow afternoon.
Comment by Dave — April 24, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
“What is it about the second group that allows them to so fully turn the tables on one of cinema’s most ICONIC tough guys.”
Um, they’re stuntwomen with a gun, a fast car and, like many other “tough girl” female movie protagonists, a need for revenge?
“…the lengthy and often mundane dialogue scenes that are not directly CAUSALLY related to the action of the film.”
I’m glad we’ve finally established that. Slow pacing is fine — I love Terrence Malick films. But of course you’d never see Days of Heaven masquerading as a “white-hot juggernaut .”
I look forward to starting this whole thing over with Inland Empire…
Comment by FEEDBACK — April 24, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
“Um, they’re stuntwomen with a gun, a fast car and, like many other “tough girl” female movie protagonists, a need for revenge?”
Yeah but I think there’s a more fundamental difference in how the group is characterised. There’s much less willingness to objects of the well established “male gaze.” Whereas the girls from the first group are all about being objects of desire and giving lap dances and so on, the second group comprise of women who take a pistol with them when they do laundry.
“Slow pacing is fine — I love Terrence Malick films. But of course you’d never see Days of Heaven masquerading as a “white-hot juggernaut .”
But like I stated, the slow pacing is what builds the anticipation for the “white hot juggernaut action” which clearly follows. Had the film been more streamlined and more conventionally structured, the action would not have been as effective for me.
After that first incredible fucking mind blowing car crash, I couldn’t wait to see what STUNTMAN MIKE gets up to next. Of course, being the sadistic director he is, Tarantino makes us wait…..and wait….and wait….and wait.
I think a lot of folks resented it.
I didn’t.
I was with it all the way.
Either way, it was a very deliberate choice on the part of the director to infuse that sort of pacing into the film. And it was a risky choice that clearly did not appeal to all fans of the film. Nevertheless, I dug it. You didn’t.
Or - as I’m fond of saying to my caustic critic partner in crime…..
I’m right.
And you’re wrong.
So there.
Comment by ZIMERMAAAAAAAAAN!!! — April 25, 2007 @ 4:42 am
Nothing gets me hotter than a journalist orgy. Or circle jerk. Bah, whatever, I’ll be in the copy room making reasonable facsimiles of my ass.
I haven’t seen Inland Empire, but considering his films generally stand on the good side of the line between convoluted wankjobs and artistic triumphs, it only figures Lynch was bound to slip a little bit. Especially now that he’s bitter on account of not being able to actually get 200 new age goofs to levitate in one room or whatever it is he does in his spare time.
And the line about Jovanka preferring entertainment to art was…entertaining. In a Michael Moore kind of way*
*this line was not intended to bait FEEDBACK.
Comment by Dave — April 25, 2007 @ 10:04 am
“*this line was not intended to bait FEEDBACK.”
Being British and all, I hear the best way to bait Stuart is to leave a pile of scones and cigarettes in a leg-hold trap.
Comment by SIR FEEDBACK — April 25, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
saw inland empire.
four words: you are all wankers!
That’s all.
Comment by SIR FEEDBACK — April 25, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
p.s. i could go on in more detail and offer my insights on the film but i’d only be told that i was being “silly.”
i’ll spare you the infamy.
Comment by Jovanka — April 25, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Oh boy, here we go….
Comment by FDBK — April 25, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
“Being British and all, I hear the best way to bait Stuart is to leave a pile of scones and cigarettes in a leg-hold trap. ”
I’ll NEVER …i repeat NEVER …. fall for that one again!
Comment by FDBK — April 25, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
“Oh boy, here we go…. ”
No, we won’t. I remember showing my Mum and Dad a David Lynch movie. They looked at me like I was fucked. No amount of trying to explain it to them helped my case. I’m afraid we got a similar situation happening here. Or rather - we WOULD have a situation like that except - THIS TIME - I’m not gonna get suckered into pontificating like a chone!
You live and learn.
That is all.
Comment by Dave — April 25, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
How about just telling us how much you liked it and give couple of reasons why. Swear I’m not baiting you — just curious. I tried hard to get on board with the film but couldn’t.
Was it “fookin’ brilliant,” “visually stunning” and a “amazing masterpiece of epic proportions” or not quite reaching those Herculean heights that Death Proof apparently does?
Comment by FEEDBACK — April 25, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
“Was it “fookin’ brilliant,””
Yes. Yes, it was.
“visually stunning”
Yep.
and a “amazing masterpiece of epic proportions”
absolutely.
Comment by Jovanka — April 26, 2007 @ 10:04 am
“p.s. i could go on in more detail and offer my insights on the film but i’d only be told that i was being “silly.”
i’ll spare you the infamy.”
Thank you for sparing me another pedantic argument about a movie that SUCKS. (hee hee!)
Comment by FEEDBACK — April 27, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
“Thank you for sparing me another pedantic argument about a movie that SUCKS. (hee hee!) ”
I know you’re just trying to bait me into a ferocious rant about the great Cinemagician David Lynch …..but I’m not gonna bite, see.
I’m a new and improved FEEDBACK!
So no more messageboard flame wars on the Rue Mortuary with the Editor-in-Grief and her evil sidekick, Igor Alexander.
From now on, I’m a uniter - NOT a divider. Make love - not war….etc.
So run along, Agent Starling. Your chicken wing chariot and August Underground videos await!
Comment by Dave — April 27, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
“So no more messageboard flame wars on the Rue Mortuary with the Editor-in-Grief and her evil sidekick, Igor Alexander.”
And we’ll avoid flame wars with Herr Christopher and his lacky, Baron Von Feedback.
Comment by FEEDBACK — April 27, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
“And we’ll avoid flame wars with Herr Christopher and his lacky, Baron Von Feedback.”
I like the Baron Von Feedback bit.
Nice one!
Not so sure about the “lacky” bit.
The old FEEDBACK would’ve reacted to that comment.
But not the new one.
The new one is content to sit back, smile, lick his lips and wait.
And wait.
and wait……
Comment by Asmodeus — April 30, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
I can really feel the love in this thread.