The Watercooler: “Say ‘auf wiedersehen’ to your Nazi balls.”
I’m trying to decide whether to see Inglourious Basterds again this evening (review) so I figured I’d toss up the Watercooler a little early. I haven’t dug into the reviews yet, but it seems pretty clear reactions are still divided even if there are more positive voices. One thing is clear, audiences showed up for it to the tune of $37.6 million $38.1 million in the US and big numbers overseas. It’s Tarantino’s biggest opening and not too shabby for a movie that is mostly subtitled.
I had World’s Greatest Dad pegged as a limited release in the Weekend Forecast, but it looks like it was only a New York release. Maybe I’ll catch it online after all.
In other news, I stumbled on Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds on ABC on Saturday night right after the first big machine emerged from underground. I only planned on catching a few minutes because I hate coming into a movie after it’s already started and the thing was lousy with commercials, but I couldn’t stop watching the damn thing. Not all of it makes sense if you think too carefully about it, but most of the biggest flaws (including the anticlimactic ending I’ve never liked) are in the original novel. One thing is clear, Spielberg can still crap an action/suspense scene that Michael Bay couldn’t even fantasize about.
I’m sorry to keep banging the Michael Bay gong. I know it’s a massive target, but I gave over 2 1/2 hours of my life to that goddamn robot movie. I think I’ve earned it.
Anyway, that’s all from this end. Anybody else see anything good?
Filed under: Watercooler
I’m not sure when I’ll get to Inglorious Basterds, but as it was one of my most anticipated movies it will be shortly. I’m visiting with my parents this weekend though and it’s not their kind of movie.
To begin, Friday was Gene Hackman day on TCM. :D
I watched Bonnie and Clyde. Such an amazing movie. Funny and heartbreaking, and what a cast. I love the Gene Wilder sequence. Gene Hackman is one of my favorite actors, and he was excellent in this movie. And of course we have the two gorgeous leads. I’ve never particularly been a Warren Beatty fan – I like him well enough, not crazy about him – but man was he eye candy when he was young. And Faye Dunaway was a knockout.
On Saturday afternoon we went to see The Hurt Locker, which I really liked. The movie has its flaws but so much of it works, and it was really well done overall. TCM was celebrating Sterling Hayden so I watched The Asphalt Jungle. Another great caper movie about doomed people. Hayden and the rest of the cast is awesome, particularly Sam Jaffe.
I’m about to watch Bresson’s Pickpocket on DVD – à bientôt for now.
“but man was he eye candy when he was young”
My wife fully concurs with that appraisal.
I am running a curious streak here: two movies in two weeks that I’m not completely satisfied with yet I’m completely engrossed with each.
Inglorious Basterds was not at all what I expected, which is a just fine, and even though I found most of the Basterds scenes pretty flat and uninteresting, the film as a whole is quite impressive. I’ll echo praise for everything the rest of you have (no need to repeat the laundry list of greatness) and note that it’s interesting that a period film has lead to some of the best dialogue scenes Tarantino has ever constructed. Stripped of his pop culture affectations and glib self-awareness, Taratino’s long expository scenes in IG are quite breathtaking. Now if only Brad Pitt hadn’t muddled the rest of it with his overacted cartoon caricature, it might have been perfect.
And I don’t think anyone else has mentioned it, but Denis Menochet in the opening scene is absolutely amazing. Watching him slowly realize he’s trapped and eventually break down is amazing. I also loved the wonderful ode to The Searchers that Tarantino inserts into the climax of that opening sequence.
Sunday I saw Thirst, which was f*cking awesome. Chan Wook Park uses a lot of the cliches of vampire films to subvert the romanticism of vampires. It’s a hell of a movie, and I agree with Craig and sartre that there’s really only one false moment in the entire film.
I also wandered in and caught the first 30 minutes of Ponyo again, which was also wonderful. I was happy to see a mostly full theater, a nice mix of adults and children. I hope that movie gets the recognition it deserves at the end of the year.
“Now if only Brad Pitt hadn’t muddled the rest of it with his overacted cartoon caricature, it might have been perfect.”
I’m guessing he gave Tarantino what he asked for.
Glad to hear you were impressed with IB and loved Thirst, Joel.
I realize Thirst isn’t going to impress everyone and that in a sense, it’s all stuff we’ve seen before, but I loved all the numerous little touches that made it a distinctly Park film and the performances were great.
The Brit Noir Festival continues at the Film Forum and I saw three double features this week again:
The October Man **** (Wed.)
The Green Cockatoo ** 1/2 (Wed.)
Hell Drivers **** (Sat.)
Never Let Go *** 1/2 (Sat.)
Gaslight (Dickinson) **** 1/2 (Sun.)
Hatter’s Castle **** (Sun.)
As I stated in a prior post, I will have a full report of every film I’ve managed to see in a massive final consideration of the festival in September.
I saw two films otherwise:
Inglorious Basterds ** 1/2 (Friday afternoon; Edgewater multiplex)
The Headless Woman ** (Friday night; Film Forum)
I stated my views on the Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds, which I saw yesterday. While I remain disturbed by the sadistic violence and sustained boredom of the film, I respect the majority of critics, Craig, Dorothy and Ari who loved the film, and the otherws here who liked it well enough. When disagreement of this level occurs I often think “maybe it’s me.” THE HEADLESS WOMAN was a torturous art house feature that gives a bad name to the genre. It’s a film of details and nuances, but it’s minimalism wears thin.
There is one LIC regular that may be on the same page with me on the Tarantino, and that is Daniel Getahun. The excessive violence that has been deplored by Jeff Wells and to a lesser extent by Stephanie Zahareck and Manola Dargis (who were mostly bored by the film, as I was largely), has turned off others, but I am being trashed at my own site by my friends and affiliates, all of whom love the film. But I could be wrong about Dan too, we’ll have to see.
It’s time for me to crawl in a hole and hide.
Craig, I’m with you on that War of the Worlds scene. The movie really has some solid sequences in the first hour, the highlight being the first ship emergence in the town square.
Alison, I saw The Asphalt Jungle last year for a write-up at MZ’s Noir Month and I loved it. Really influential in a lot of ways (even the heist scene in Rififi) and you’re right, great performances.
I was fairly social this weekend but had Basterds and Lorna’s Silence on my list to see. I ended up shying from Basterds, at least temporarily, because I wasn’t sure if I was up for the violence. I’m still not sure but plan on seeing it this week. I’ve never really found Tarantino’s brand of blood very entertaining or all that ha-ha funny (from the ear in RD to the head exploding in PF to the bloody ballet in KB), so I’m kind of already behind the count if that’s all IB is good for. It could explain why I prefer Jackie Brown and PF significantly more than the KBs.
Where would people place the sadism on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being Saw/Hostel/Funny Games-ish?
I did see Lorna’s Silence and thought it was fantastic. Never count out the French, and I loved having to piece together nearly every detail of the story in my head as it went along. Would like to check out L’Enfant now for sure.
I also saw The King of Comedy. I loved the ambiguity of the ending and thought De Niro kept a pretty even keel throughout. Sandra Bernhard didn’t do a lot for me – I found her as annoying as Lewis found De Niro.
Jinx, Sam…
Daniel, the heist scene from Riffifi is exactly what was in my mind when I watched the heist scene in The Asphalt Jungle. But the guys in Riffifi pwned those other guys – there was no sound to tip anyone off until too late. :-)
Alison wins this week’s Watercooler prize even though she hasn’t seen Baterds yet. That’s quite a line up.
Joel, we’re on the same page with Thirst. I loved the hell out of that movie, though I still can’t really quantify it.
Where we part company is on Brad Pitt. I thought his cartoonishness was perfect and the movie would’ve been pretty bleak without it.
Sam, stick to your guns. Don’t let the basterds get you down.
“THE HEADLESS WOMAN was a torturous art house feature that gives a bad name to the genre.” ahahahha…yeah, I’ll be skipping that one. Sam your tolerance for that sort of thing tends to run higher than mine so if you didn’t like it, I’m sure I’ll find it insufferable.
Daniel, it’s hard to say about IB. Honestly I’m a little surprised by Sam’s extreme reaction, but I’m inclined to think you might share it. In 2.5 hours, there were three or four scenes that make you go “yikes”. Most of the movie wasn’t violent at all, but as I said in the review, those scenes involve beatings and scalpings and other more personal forms of violence that to me are harder to stomach than gun play.
I don’t think Tarantino lingers on them though, but that makes it worse because then your imagination runs wild.
Tough to say. I’d hate to recommend one way or the other.
Glad you like Lorna’s Silence as I did. I’ll be curious to hear what you think of L’Enfant. Critically it is much more beloved than Lorna, but honestly I found Lorna more digestible.
For me, the most disturbing murder in Basterds has no blood at all, and happens not long before the climactic theatre royale.
Of the movies you name Dan, I take issue with the Saws and Funny Games. Saw turns torture into a round of the Price is Right, and basically asks us to cheer the Jigsaw killer on under a cloud of self-righteousness. Funny Games pulls the same stunt only aimed to please the critics, with a more severe/obvious rap on the hands added, even though the picture itself indulges the same unpleasantness (I’ve said this before, but if Haneke had the strength of his convictions then he would’ve shown nothing – he could have interferred with the violent scenes the way he reverses an outcome later in the picture).
Hostel is always looped in with Saw as the exact same thing, and there are certainly scenes that are dumb, but I thought it had atmosphere rare to the mass release American horror movie, and I thought part II, which is admittedly much the same, was even stronger.
Thanks for the thoughts, helps knowing that 1.) the beating/scalping is limited to a few scenes, and 2.) Tarantino isn’t necessarily out to abuse the audience. I thought a particular killing scene in Miracle at St. Anna was pretty appalling last year (I’m only reminded because of the period of both movies), but at least I’ll know to expect them from Tarantino.
And Alison, agreed that the Rififi scene is a lot cooler. An umbrella beats out the laser limbo any day of the week.
I think some of the violence in IB could be labeled gratuitous but I didn’t consider it sadistic (you’ve seen one nazi scalping, you’ve seen them all). The characters are sadistic, but I don’t agree that Tarantino’s camera is. I can easily see how it would turn your stomach, Sam, but I think there’s a distinct point to it here that might be missing from PF or KB 1 or 2.
To be fair, District 9 is as gory and violent as IB and far more exploitively so.
Daniel, I’m in the camp that believes QT makes the violence unpleasant on purpose, not because he gets off on it that way, but he doesn’t take it lightly. It should hurt a little and not be easy.
Whether that’s something a person wants to sit down and watch is another issue altogether.
Chuck, are we talking about the climax of the shoe business?
Yes.
That one hit me harder the second time even though the first time it made an impact for being completely unexpected. I mean, you could see what was coming in the big picture, but the manner and force of it was unsettling, particularly following the slightly erotic charge that preceded it.
Ditto that last comment. That aspect of it to me felt very DePalma-esque.
Yeah. DePalma. Chuck’s comment in his own review and in the earlier Friday post about DePalma and the final scene too was dead on. The shot from above when they’re rushing for the locked doors…as Chuck says, very Carrie.
Note to self…watch for sexually charged, manically violent shoe…
Yeah, that’s an apt comparison. Many aspects of this movie are playing off the horror angle or the Western as much as the WWII men-on-mission angle. QT once again mashed his genres in a very interesting way.
It will be an effort to maintain my composure. But I will try…
I am completely and totally pissed. Everyone is talking about INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS all over the net.
We didn’t get to see it. I have to vent. Here’s why…
We have one chain up here that gets the lion’s share of the blockbusters and the big movies. For a while there were two. Now there’s just one. The other chains handle more of the art house, independent and obscure stuff.
In the late 70s they renovated one of the main showplace theatres downtown into a six plex. The big theatre on the main floor had 1100 seats in its auditorium. #2 and #3 were fairly good sized as well.
So of course popular stuff still sold out. But when I became a regular patron there in the 90s, it didn’t happen all that frequently. If they knew they had a highly anticipated hit on their hands, they would book it into several other auditoriums BESIDES #1.
So that gave them about 2,000 seats more or less at their disposal for a big film if they chose to go that way. If you could get your ass over there on opening weekend, you were almost assured of finding a seat somewhere.
Four years ago, that chain closed the sixplex and built a nineplex several blocks over. Good deal? NO BLOODY WAY. Those auditoriums may have stadium seating. But that’s the only advantage. Those theatres are SMALL.
So…since those changes have been initiated, all the big flicks sell out regularly. ALL THE TIME. It’s gotten to the point that if something huge opens and I really want to see it on its debut weekend, I have to make the trek to the suburbs where it won’t be as crowded.
Yeah, I know that lots of people purchase their tickets online now. I don’t like to go that route – for a couple of reasons I won’t go into here. My boy doesn’t like to either.
We’re pragmatists. Not planners.
IB was a tough situation to gauge. That particular chain booked both of the KILL BILL flicks at the old sixplex. I saw PART I several weeks after its opening. I caught PART II opening night.
All without a hitch. That was then. This is now.
We had decided to go to the theatre just to check around 6:00. There were two screenings: both around 7 more or less.
I started to get hives when I ran into a friend of mine. When I toild her I was going that night, she said, “Oh, that’ll be exciting. Everyone’s going to see that.”
I thought: WHO is everyone???
Sure enough. We get to the theatre at 6.
EVERY SINGLE SHOWING of IB is sold out – except for the 10:45 PM. This happened to us last year with INDIANA JONES.
But unfortunately this time there were no theatres close to the downtown core that were showing IB. We didn’t know what would be sold out where (I don’t think that those chains even have anyone that answers the phones any more – just prerecorded messages) and we RELUCTANTLY went over to the west side and saw IN THE LOOP.
It was good. Slightly above average so it exceeded my expectations. Loved Mr. Capaldi and Mr. Gandolfini.
But he hated it…and we were so disappointed.
Damn. Damn. GOD DAMN IT.
Who knew it was going to open that big???
Anyway, within the next few days we’ll try again – in the suburbs this time.
I’m glad most of y’all had a good time, though.
*sigh*
Wow that sucks.
I have to admit, I’m also pretty shocked it did so well. Friday night I get, but it remained crowded Saturday and Sunday. Sunday night wasn’t a completely full house where I saw it, but that’s only one of many theaters in the area that were playing it.
I was surprised how many folks over 50 were in the theater I saw it on Sat for a matinee. I didn’t expect that, but then maybe the marketing was wildly off the mark? I only saw the original teaser and posters. But then again those people usually read reviews…
I guess people still really hate Nazis (I’d count that as good news).
There have been a couple of articles talking about how Weinstein really pushed the Brad Pitt factor in marketing targeted at women…there was even a full page add in the NY Times cooking section…and how they made the difference in the boxoffice. The audience was something like 51% men, but they assumed it would’ve been a lot higher because of the subject.
Miranda,
Our show was sold out too, but I ordered my tickets online that morning. I don’t normally plan either, but I wasn’t leaving this up to chance.
I did notice a lot of the ladies checking their cell phones *repeatedly* during the movie, in some of the most dramatic scenes. Not sure if I can read anything into it, but I’d say that more than a few might have been bored.
Course, my friend Brian’s 60-something year old mother loved it. Go figure.
“I guess people still really hate Nazis. (I’d count that as good news.)”
Ha ha ha. joel, I think you’re right.
Interesting stats you guys are coming up. I guess that’s why it went through the roof. Seems (oddly enough) that IB had an appeal to all demographics.
Chuck, my darling, I guess sometimes it pays to plan. Even if goes against your most primal nature.
Aw, hell. I’ll see it SOMEWHERE before Friday. Then I’ll be able to throw my two and a half cents in with all of you.
FINALLY…
I could tell this would be a cross-over age hit when I saw all the walkers and wheelchairs at my screening…
I went to IB with my father and brother (it’s kind of a tradition, we’ve seen all Tarantino’s since Kill Bill pt. 1 together), and the BF. We’re kind of the demographic, in other words: the public you can count on to go see all new QT movies. But (illustrating the wide appeal): my father is probably going a second time… and dragging my mom, because he’s curious what she’ll think. This is a 54 year old woman who dislikes cursing in films, prefers her movies realistic, and doesn’t enjoy violence. Then again, she did like Pulp Fiction quite a bit, so we’ll see.
Hedwig, if my friend Brian’s mom is any indication (she also loved Pulp Fiction), your Mom might enjoy it.
I’d just like to thank Google for making Living in Cinema the #1 destination for people searching “say auf wiedersehen to your nazi balls”.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22say+auf+wiedersehen+to+your+nazi+balls%22
A) WTF??
B) why are people searching that?
C) WTF????
For some reason I can’t help but think of the moment from The Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy:
“WE BEAT PENICILLIN!!!”
Congrats. Your balls are #1.
Ooh, congratulations, Craig!
Congrats, Craig!!! You should add that to the header.
“Living in Cinema: Say Auf Wiedersehen to Your Nazi Balls”
Hedwig, that sounds like an awesome good time – a family/BF QT frolic.
Christian, you always had a wicked wit. Glad to see that it’s as razor sharp as ever.
Oh…and I concur wholeheartedly with Goddess D.
Congrats, Craig. LiC deserves every bit of credit it gets. 24/7.
But that is just hysterical…
Random K. Bowen observation of the week ….. Did 21 Grams have the best cast ever assembled?
Sean Penn
Naomi Watts
Benecio Del Toro
Melissa Leo
Charlotte Gainsbourg
4 Oscar nominees, Two winners, and one Best Actress at Cannes. That’s gotta pose a challenge to the Godfather films.
All I saw was Inglourious Basterds. It was enough. I’m sad I waited until Sunday to see it because if I’d seen if Friday, I could have fit in several more screenings of it the rest of the weekend.
I’d read the screenplay, knew exactly what to expect. It still blew me away.
Daniel, for what it’s worth, I’m squeamish as they come and had really mixed feelings about all the violence in say, Kill Bill. I appreciate (reluctantly sometimes) graphic violence when it is in the service of story, ala A History of Violence. I usually dislike the how-cool-is-this kind of violence.
For whatever reason, the violence in IB works really well, I thought. It’s extremely visceral punctuation that is for the most part used very sparingly. You know when it’s coming, because there has been so much build-up, so if you want to look away, you can. The film is a whole lot talkier than most of QT’s and he does dialogue of course like the best of them.
On a scale of 10 with Hostel//Saw at 10, I’d say 6.
I’m giving it 4 1/2 stars. Waltz and Pitt stole every scene they were in, and in very different ways. I liked all the casting except Eli Roth. He was the weakest link. Maybe Mike Myers, too. That was just odd.
K. Bowen, any cast with Benicio in it is a candidate for the best cast ever assembled, natch.
I don’t get the dislike of THE HEADLESS WOMAN. I thought it was terrific.
Matthew: The critics are sharply divided on THE HEADLESS WOMAN. If you look at RT for example, it presently sports the ’splattered’ tomato, which is not good. Having said that I will say that I have a high ratio of agreeing with you on art house cinema, In fact I know of no other person on line who I seem to have such similar taste with over the couse of a year. I know what the director was trying for here, with the attention to minute details and nuances, and the premise is an intriguing one (the clouded car death on the road, person OR animal) but for me the film went nowhere and was an excrutiating experience to sit through. The end just didn’t justify the listless execution. One man sitting near me said aloud that he thought he was the ‘worst film he ever saw in his life.’ I wouldn’t quite go that far, but the audience at the Film Forum, usually reliably informed and tasteful, was angry at the conclusion. Still, I’ve read effusive praise and outright pan. There’s little down the middle here.
I respect that you came away from this with a strong positive reaction. I wish I could agree.
Really appreciate those thoughts, JB, and I’m excited for what’s hopefully a lot of Tarantino brand rapid fire dialogue, as opposed to Tarantino brand rapid fire shooting. Hope to see it either tonight or tomorrow night and will probably chime on Craig’s review then.
Daniel, oddly, the dialogue isn’t so much rapid-fire. More like slow and deliberate bayonetting.
I just had a review of IB up and ready to post, but I simply can’t pull the trigger. The reactions of the patrons of this site have unerved me, and I loathe the contrarian role, much as I’ve criticized this practice myself. There are people out there who don’t care for this film, and a few who hate it at other blogs, but what with the high regard at this great movie site, I prefer to remain silent and talk about some other films where we agree. I will in good time give this film a second whirl though. This is a certainty.
Noted, JB. Watch for bayonetting dialogue and a sexually violent shoe.
Do it, Sam! I may end up disagreeing with you as well, but people who take these things personally should not be your concern. If there is valid discussion to be had about the merits of a film, there should be no reason not to initiate it. But if you think people will become personal than I can understand your hesitation.
Do it, Sam. You won’t get scalped. Yet.
Haha Dorothy. Maybe I should just change the name of the blog.
My parents would be so proud…
Sam. Post your review! Stick to your guns. Posterity demands it.
As enthusiastic as i am about the movie, I’m unusually at peace with dissenting views. The only negative review I’ve taken issue with was one that happened to be completely full of shit and by that I mean the person’s justifications for their view were nonsensical and totally hypocritical in the context of other opinions they’ve asserted.
I doubt your reasoning is nonsense Sam and your voice should be heard…especially on your own damn blog. You’ll take a fair amount of shit for it I’m sure, but you’ll find a lot of people who come out of the woodwork agreeing with you as well.
Yeah Sam, if this site is any indication posting a review a sizable percentage of your readers disagree with leads to some of the most interesting discussions. Sometimes it gets heated, sometimes people act a little foolish defending one side or another (ahem, myself included), but as long as it stays civil it’s all fair game for the blog. That’s what blogs are really all about anyway. If we all agreed on everything there would be no point to all this in the first place.
POST THE REVIEW.
God, I do appreciate this concensus here! All of you: Craig, Daniel, Christian, Joel………..I will make some recvisions that I can live with and will have it up for Thursday morning. I am almost tempted to go back to my multiplex to watch it a second time tomorrow, but I’ll see if I can manage it. Temporarily, I chickened out and referred to Rick Olson, whose views at Coosa Creek Mambo seem to mirror my own, but it’s true I need to make my own views known.
Thanks so much for the confidence, all.
I think it’s okay to have two minds on IB. If you want to see a real blog bloodbath on IB, go here. I barely escaped….
http://dcairns.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/inglourious-technicolor/
I do, however, agree with you on INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, Sam. I’m not a big fan. Just wrote a 1,200 word essay on it than I’m sure my newspaper editor will wish was shorter, but I had a lot to say. Look for it today or tomorrow.
I guess I have to thank you, Christian, cause that was mildly illuminating. Those folks talk about Tarantino more than they discuss the movie. Now I know how any honest Michael Bay fan feels visiting this web site on any given Transforminators Sunday. The hate is palpable.
Oh man. Jeff Wells really has lost it.
Commentt #39 in his latest attempt to take down Inglourious Basterds is him trying to explain why he’s right and the rest of the world is wrong:
“I’ve always felt on some level that my reactions to films are partly & obviously my very own and partly a channelling of some…I don’t know what to call it but let’s call it a kind of Movie God wisdom. I am a person with a particular background and likes/dislikes, but I am also, I feel, a kind of conduit of something bigger. You can’t really write, I feel, if you don’t open yourself up to that “something greater and grander” out there (or “up there” or “in there”). You have to let that force tell you what’s right & true. It’s partly what you know and partly what is. So in a certain sense I am an instrument of some sort of energy that’s not entirely fed by what kind of breakfast I’ve had in the morning. Go ahead & laugh, but that’s how it kinda feels. Glenn Gould said something like this once. He’s playing the piano, of course, but it’s not just him. Something is also speaking or playing through him. And that force knows (and has courteously let me know) the true cosmic & celestial worth of Inglourious Basterds.”
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/08/how_it_is_1.php
The only difference between Wells and poor Howard Beale at this point is that Howard Beale was right.
I don’t question the guy’s taste and sometimes I even share it, but the enormous ego it takes to come right out and say basically “I have The Word that denies all other words” is almost pathological and more than a little sad.
I had to post that quote on my blog yesterday after I read it. Legendary. And then that bullying boor Milkman is gonna leave HE becuz everybody’s so mean to poor Jeffy Wells!
I thought Wells purged all the dissenters last fall.
Apparently Milkman forgot. But that’s what happens after a purge…
which thread was the Milkster pouting? I didn’t see it.
Ahahahahahaha…now he’s postulating in the comments section of a new thread that the “Quentino Philistines” won’t appreciate the first 2/3s of Malick’s The New World.
It won’t fit into is movie god addled skull how a person could find something to like in both movies.
Nice smackdown, Craig.
Milkman posted in the Maher-Conan thread. I’ve never liked him, but then, he never liked me.
Meh. I’m swatting at flies. I need to just stop checking in there. I was doing so well for months.
Sorry for long comment. Finally watched A Christmas Tale last night and need to rave about it.
Despite containing many familiar elements of the French/European art house genre (Audiard’s influence seemed present at times) in subject matter and style it mixed them up in such an audacious way that it left us with the raw thrill of experiencing something new, particularly in terms of structure – a kind of cinéma de jazz.
The characters are nearly all representations of extreme personality types – self-indulgent and reckless, depressive and intense, sunny and manic, withdrawn and somber, with one parent benevolently and the other coolly and wryly indifferent. But they’re not caricatures, the fine (in Amalric’s case charismatic) performances and writing infuses them with a sense of authenticity. And you can add to the mix two dead and absent but ever present characters, one more so. Their relationship history is so convoluted and messy that it easily rivals the Royal Tenebaums (a possible influence). I liked that not every critical aspect of it was fully revealed.
But what makes all this work so originally is that we’re not just presented an eccentric bunch of family members and complicated relationships in the lead up to Christmas and a critical bone marrow transplant operation. The film’s very structure and pacing is eccentric. It took me a long time to gain firm enough footing to find a way into understanding what I was taking in, with the sudden changes in tone and pacing (both nimbly underscored by shifts in the accompanying music score). We go from pensive, to dramatic, to foreboding, to comedic, to farcical and absurd etc. Regularly changing are scene length, I’m guessing cutting rhythm, and the speed of movement within scenes. But it’s not tiresome or banal, at least it wasn’t for us, because characters and individual moments and sequences are always engaging, the unpredictability somehow seems true to life’s messiness, and the overall dynamism had its own internal integrity. It was like more complicated jazz ensembles, with distinctive instruments and soloist and section moments picking up what came before and changing it without wholly losing the core and sight of key motifs/themes.
It created the illusion of improvisation but it was the best kind of rigorous freeform.
Rave away my friend. I’m happy to have more support for the joy and wonder that is A Christmas Tale.
Your jazz ensemble metaphor is an apt one and it highlights the loose feeling and changes in tone the film pulled off so brilliantly.
I loved how it took some of the oldest of cinematic cliches and spun them into a delirious confection of goodness. It was so dark, yet it had this crazy impish twinkle in its eye. They were a genuinely messed up family, but I had a strange affection for them all the same in all their tragically flawed glory.
My favorite scene had mother (Deneuve) and son (Almaric) sitting on a swing set smoking cigarettes in the freezing cold admitting casually that they’d never really liked each other.
I haven’t seen it again since November (and totally regret never reviewing it) and I can’t wait for the Criterion DVD.
It seems like the kind of film that will inevitably irritate or sorely disappoint someone it didn’t work for. So I’m not surprised you encountered opposition to your enthusiasm Craig. Your reference to the ‘crazy impish twinkle in its eye’ as a counterpoint to its troubled and dark background beautifully captures a major source of the film’s success for us. That was a terrific scene you recalled.
Just wanted to add that I’m definitely looking forward to Sam’s review (good job helping convince him, team!). It will be an instructive read, I’m sure.
Also, this last exchange between sartre and Craig reminded me that I REALLY need to see A Christmas Tale ASAP. It fell under the radar months ago. I was *this* close to seeing it, but then got swamped by one thing or the other.
Tell that swamp thing to take its damn dirty hands off you, Dorothy.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts on the film.
I anxiously anticipate your reaction DP. You may remember people were all over the map on that one ranging from Love to Hate.